THE  MOVEMENT  TOWARDS 
VIIJOJJC  FORM  IN  THE 
\RLYSI3   ;     NTH  CENTURY 

►RGE  V.  JOURDAN 


THE  MOVEMENT  TOWARDS  CATHOLIC 

REFORM  IN  THE  EARLY  SIXTEENTH 

CENTURY 


THE   MOVEMENT 

TOWARDS  CATHOLIC  REFORM 

IN  THE  EARLY  XVI  CENTURY 


by  GEORGE  V.  JOURDAN,  b.d. 

RECTOR    OF    RATHBARRY,    CASTLEFREKE 


"  Great  men  of  all  times  are  those  who  have 
understood  the  cry  from  the  inmost  heart  of  a 
whole  nation  or  generation,  and,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  have  accomplished  what  the 
hour  demanded." — 

Camb.  Mod.  Hist.,  II,  1 5. 


NEW  YORK : 

E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 
1914 


ALL     RIGHTS    RESERVED 


1X5 


PREFACE 


Hitherto,  the  stirring  events  of  the  Reformation  and 
Counter-reformation  have  been  the  chief,  if  not  the  sole, 
attraction  for  those  who  have  studied  the  history  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  That  stormy  age  will  always  main- 
tain a  place  of  high  importance  in  the  thoughts  of  many, 
both  learned  and  simple,  because  in  it  are  to  be  found 
the  sources  of  numerous  modern  problems,  religious  and 
political. 

Yet  the  episodes  which  occurred  in  the  years  im- 
mediately anterior  to  the  Reformation  are  also  of  great 
interest.  When  the  story  of  this  earlier  epoch  shall  have 
been  fully  written,  its  readers  will  discover  that  the  men 
of  that  era  and  their  doings  are  not  less  fascinating,  not 
less  worthy  of  being  chronicled  than  those  of  the  age 
which  follows. 

Until  a  few  decades  ago  the  absence  of  sufficient  and 
accurate  information  prevented  the  execution  of  such  a 
work.  But,  during  the  past  generation,  a  number  of 
scholars  in  England,  Germany,  and  France  have  been 
engaged  in  examining  the  records  of  the  closing  years  of 
the  fifteenth  century  and  the  opening  ones  of  the  six- 
teenth. The  publication  of  Dean  Colet's  commentaries 
and  lectures,  so  ably  completed  by  Mr.  Lupton  ;  the 
biographical  labours  of  Professors  Kostlin  and  Villari, 
of  Messrs.  Seebohm  and  Drummond,  and,  more  recently, 
of  Doctors  Delaruelle  and  Barnaud  ;  the  collections  of 
letters  and  documents  made,  with  immense  trouble  and 
care,  by  M.  Herminjard,  Doctors  Knaake,  Horawitz, 
and  Hartfelder ;  the  valuable  histories  of  Bishop 
Mandell  Creighton  and  Dr.  Ludwig  Pastor  ;  above  all, 
the  arduous  enterprise  of  editing  the  Epistles  of 
Erasmus,  and  at  the  same  time  arranging  their  chrono- 


vi  PREFACE 

logy,  undertaken  by  Herr  Arthur  Richter  and  Dr.  Max 
Reich  in  Germany,  and  by  Mr.  Francis  Morgan  Nichols 
and  Mr.  P.  S.  Allen  in  England,  have  assisted  greatly 
in  illumining  for  us  an  epoch  which  has  an  interest  and 
character  all  its  own. 

The  present  treatise  is  intended  as  a  modest  contri- 
bution towards  a  narrative  of  the  principal  incidents 
of  those  times. 

Such  terms  as  are  here  employed  to  denote  different 
classes  of  men  will,  it  is  presumed,  be  fairly  clear  in  their 
meaning.  To  the  important  appellative  "  Catholic  " 
is  assigned,  throughout  this  book,  that  signification  to 
the  explanation  of  which  part  of  the  Introduction  has 
been  devoted.  "  Curialist  "  is  sometimes  used  here  in 
the  strict  sense  of  an  official  or  dependant  of  the  Curia  ; 
more  usually,  however,  I  have  employed  it  as  a  synonym 
for  "  Papist."  The  latter  word  would  have  been  a  more 
convenient,  and  probably  more  correct,  term  than  the 
former,  but  I  have  deliberately  avoided  it,  lest  the 
supposition  should  arise  that  it  was  being  used  in  an 
opprobrious  sense.  Indeed,  it  may  be  proper  to  declare 
here,  once  for  all,  that,  while  making  no  conscious 
effort  to  disguise  my  own  convictions,  I  have  endeav- 
oured to  eliminate  from  present  consideration  every- 
thing that  pertains  to  the  religious  controversies  of  our 
own  times.    My  aim  in  this  treatise  is  not  controversial. 

I  am  under  many  obligations  for  kindly  assistance. 
To  the  authorities  of  the  Bodleian  Library  I  owe  my 
thanks  for  their  permitting  the  verification  of  references 
and  the  transcription  of  numerous  extracts  from  valu- 
able books  in  their  possession  ;  it  is  in  consequence  of 
their  kindness  that  I  am  able  to  print  Marquard  von 
Hatstein's  epistle  to  Colet.  I  desire  to  thank  Mr.  T.  W. 
Lyster,  the  Librarian  of  the  National  Library  of 
Ireland,  and  Mr.  A.  W.  K.  Miller,  assistant-keeper  of 
the  printed  books  in  the  Library  of  the  British  Museum, 
for  their  unfailing  courtesy  and  promptitude  in  making 
references  for  me  ;    the  latter  supplied  me  with  the 


PREFACE 


vu 


transcription  of  the  epistle  of  Quonus  which  forms 
Appendix  III.  The  officials  of  the  University  Library, 
Liverpool,  have  also  obliged  me  by  allowing  me  to 
consult  several  useful  works  in  their  Library.  To  the 
Trustees  of  Dr.  Williams's  Library,  and  their  Librarian, 
I  am  deeply  indebted  for  frequent  loans  of  books  and  a 
large  number  of  references.  My  profound  thanks  are 
due  to  the  Board  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  to  the 
Librarian  (the  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D.,  Litt.D.),  and 
the  assistant-librarians,  for  lending  me  from  their  great 
Library  some  rare  and  expensive  books,  and  for  assist- 
ance rendered  in  other  ways.  For  help,  criticism,  and 
advice  tendered  me  by  many  good  friends,  I  am  grateful, 
but  to  none  have  I  more  reason  to  express  my  gratitude 
than  to  the  Rev.  E.  A.  Golding,  B.A.,  B.D.,  Rector  of 
Drimoleague.  He  has  been  ever  ready  to  give  me  any 
aid  in  his  power,  and  I  have  profited  considerably  from 
the  hints  and  suggestions  which  his  excellent  judgment 
and  critical  acumen  have  afforded  me. 

My  treatise  goes  forth  with  the  hope  that,  under  the 
blessing  of  God,  it  may  prove  useful. 

G.  V.  J. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
INTRODUCTION  ----------        XI 

CHAPTER   I 

BIBLE    TEACHING    AT    OXFORD    BEFORE    COLET-  -  ...  I 

CHAPTER   II 

COLET'S    BIBLE    TEACHING    AT    OXFORD       ------       24 

CHAPTER   III 

COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S.     EDUCATION  AND  SATIRE  AS  MEASURES 

ADOPTED   FOR  THE   BETTERMENT  OF  RELIGION  -  -  -  "45 

CHAPTER  IV 

LEFEVRE  D'ETAPLES  AND  THE  MOVEMENT  HE  INITIATED  AT  PARIS     -      78 

CHAPTER   V 

DEMANDS    FOR    ECCLESIASTICAL    REFORM    (I3I2).       BIBLICAL   STUDIES 

AT    PARIS    AND    CAMBRIDGE  -------       <)g 

CHAPTER   VI 

GERMANY  BEFORE  LUTHER  (15II-16).  THE  REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY  I32 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE    LITERARY    ACTIVITIES    OF    1515-16     ------    l6» 

CHAPTER   VIII 

THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    LUTHER-  -------    I97 

CHAPTER    IX 

OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  MOVEMENT 

TOWARDS    CATHOLIC    REFORM -23 1 

ix 


x  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   X  face 

END    Or    THE    MOVEMENT 2«5 

CHAPTER   XI 

PARTISANSHIP  -  -  - 293 

CONCLUSION 3'S 

APPENDIX    ] 

THE    EARLY    LIFE    OF    ERASMUS 1*3 

APPENDIX     II 
EPISTLE    OF    MARQ.    VON    HATSTEIN    TO    COLET 32^ 

APPENDIX     III 
EPISTLE    Or    QUONLS    TO    LEFEVRE    d'eTAPIES j2» 


INTRODUCTION 


In  times  of  transition  the  subtle  forces  at  work  are 
scarcely  perceived  by  the  ordinary  sort  of  persons. 
It  is  left  for  a  few  of  more  than  average  capacity  to  give 
voice  to  their  consciousness  of  what  all  might  know,  if 
the  power  of  observing  the  currents  of  human  thought 
were  a  common  possession.  Those  remarkable  men, 
who  thus  become  interpreters  to  their  contemporaries, 
are  oftentimes  described  as  the  originators  of  the 
movements,  of  which  they,  after  all,  are  only  the 
exponents  ;  they  are,  in  truth,  as  much  subject  to  the 
spirit  of  the  age  in  which  they  live  as  the  rest  of  man- 
kind. If  there  be  any  justification  at  all  for  terming  such 
men  originators,  it  must  be  sought  rather  in  their  con- 
trol, their  guidance  of  forces  already  existent,  than  in 
any  actual  production  of  them.  All  these  men,  in  the 
past,  have  undoubtedly  performed  the  task  of  inter- 
preters to  their  generation  by  words  of  counsel  and 
admonition.  But  some  have  illustrated  their  instruc- 
tions by  their  activities,  by  operating  upon  the  principal 
tendencies  of  thought  peculiar  to  their  times  and 
directing  them  to  a  beneficial  fulfilment.  Among  the 
latter  have  been  Savonarola  and  the  Catholic  Reformers. 
The  epoch  in  which  they  lived  was  pre-eminently 
one  of  transition.  Classical  learning  had  sprung  up 
again  into  new  life,  and  the  study  of  it  had  developed 
into  a  passion.  Consequent  upon  this  renascence  of 
intellectual  energy,  an  extension  of  the  empire  over 
which  the  human  mind  bore  sway  was  bound  to  take 
place  and  to  overleap  the  accustomed  limits.  Accord- 
ingly, a  spirit  of  critical  investigation  had  made  its 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

way  into  many  departments  :  Laurentius  Valla  and 
Poggio  Bracciolini  had  initiated  the  science  of  historical 
criticism  and  threatened  to  exercise  their  acumen  in 
researches  into  more  sacred  provinces.  Everything, 
moreover,  tended  in  the  one  direction.  Politically, 
socially,  as  well  as  intellectually,  the  middle  ages  were 
drawing  to  an  end  :  the  era  of  simple  credulity  was 
giving  place  to  the  age  of  reason.  Guarded  closely  by 
its  legions  of  champions,  religion,  for  a  long  time,  pre- 
served itself  immune  from  examination  by  the  awakened 
mental  powers  of  Christendom.  But  no  barrier  of 
ecclesiastical  privilege  could  hope  to  prevail  inde- 
finitely against  the  irresistible  advance  of  human 
knowledge,  when  this  was  made  from  several  points 
at  once.  For,  on  the  one  hand  was  the  powerful 
influence  of  the  Renaissance  ;  on  another,  the  effects 
of  the  conciliar  doctrines  enunciated  by  D'Ailly, 
Gerson,  and  the  rest ;  and  on  another  still,  the  impres- 
sions made  upon  the  minds  of  western  Christians  by  the 
Great  Papal  Schism.  All  these  led  towards  the  one 
point,  an  investigation  into,  not  so  much  the  grounds 
on  which  the  Christian  religion  rested,  as  the  causes 
of  the  notorious  contrast  between  the  early  Christian 
Church  and  its  modern  descendant.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  oft-reiterated  appeal 
for  reform  had  been  the  token  that  this  investigation 
was  proceeding.  It  signified,  indeed,  little  else.  To 
translate  the  demand  into  concerted  action  was  the 
very  last  thing  that  western  Christians,  in  that  age, 
could  see  their  way  to  do.  As  for  the  laity,  they, 
princes  and  commoners,  again  and  again  entreated  the 
Church  to  reform  herself.  As  for  the  clergy,  many 
prominent  and  saintly  dignitaries  would  have  welcomed 
the  removal  of  prevalent  abuses,  and  did  not  hesitate 
to  say  so  openly.  But  Christendom  found  itself  in  a 
state  of  hopeless,  helpless  paralysis.  All  its  yearning 
aspirations  for  a  return  to  the  simpler,  more  primitive 
faith  of  those  Fathers  of  the  Church  whose  names  were 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

held  in  exalted  public  honour,  seemed  to  attain  no  other 
result  than  pious  deliberations  and  empty  promises. 
Christendom  could  not  formulate  any  definite  course 
of  action. 

It  has  to  be  remembered  that  the  Church,  to  the 
Christians  of  western  Europe  in  those  days,  stood  upon 
an  entirely  different  foundation  from  all  other  insti- 
tutions. The  Church  herself  was  the  sole  power  that 
was  regarded  as  competent  to  move  in  the  matter  of 
reform.  And  whether  by  this  was  signified  the  Church 
Universal  represented  in  a  General  Council,  as  the 
conciliarists  maintained,  or  the  Church  represented  by 
her  visible  Head,  the  Pope,  as  the  jurists  of  the  Curia 
asserted,  did  not  seriously  alter  the  position  for  the 
numerous  advocates  of  reform. 

For  several  centuries  reform  had  been  the  subject  of 
petitions,  prayers,  entreaties  ;  many  generations  had 
witnessed  the  holy  lives,  and  had  heard  the  impassioned 
summons  to  righteousness  of  numbers  of  preachers 
reputedly  orthodox.  Yet  these,  in  their  several  epochs, 
passed  away  one  after  the  other,  and  still  the  desired 
improvements  were  no  whit  nearer.  The  conciliar 
movement,  the  one  hope  of  the  desperate,  the  one  means 
available  whereby  the  "  Vicar  of  Christ  "  might  have 
been  induced  by  pressure  to  undertake  seriously  the 
sacred  work  of  cleansing  the  Church,  was  rendered  for 
ever  nugatory  when  Pius  II  sat  as  a  judge  in  a  cause 
wherein  he  was  really  defendant  and  issued  his  Bull 
Execrabilis  in  January,  1460,  making  an  appeal  to 
a  General  Council  an  offence  against  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  That  staunch  curialist,  Chieregato, 
advanced  this  plea  in  all  its  ingenuous  rigour  when 
Archbishop  Andrew  of  Krain  endeavoured  to  call  a 
General  Council  together.  But,  indeed,  until  one 
observes  how  the  zealous  insistence — even  during  Savo- 
narola's lifetime  and  for  some  years  after — of  Cardinal 
Giuliano  della  Rovere,  upon  the  necessity  of  convening 
a   General  Council  for  purposes  of  reformation,  was 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

succeeded,  on  his  elevation  to  the  Holy  See  as  Julius 
II,  by  an  equally  persistent  reluctance  to  summon  any 
such  Council,  one  cannot  take  in  the  full  measure  of 
the  deadlock  brought  into  the  whole  question  of  reform 
by  this  Bull  Execrabilis  and  the  principle  of  uncon- 
ditional obedience  to  the  "  Vicar  of  Christ." 

However,  during  the  fifteenth  century  the  spirit  of 
inquiry  which  was  manifesting  itself  in  every  other 
department  of  knowledge  was  penetrating  deeper  and 
deeper  into  the  forbidden  territory  of  religion.  Sooner 
or  later  the  time  was  certain  to  come  when  that  would  be 
attempted  from  without  the  ecclesiastical  system  which 
apparently  could  not  be  effected  from  within.  This  is 
indeed  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  phenomenon  that 
happened  in  the  second  and  third  decades  of  the 
sixteenth  century  when  the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvi- 
nists  revised  the  common  ideals  of  Catholicity  and 
Unity. 

The  active  movement  in  the  direction  of  reform, 
which  a  few  pious  churchmen  conducted  during  the 
opening  years  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  essentially 
a  movement  within  the  bosom  of  the  Church  herself. 
It  initiated  no  spirit  of  revolt ;  it  took  no  concerted 
measures  for  attack,  or  even  meditated  them  ;  it 
simply  represented  the  simultaneous  efforts  of  a  handful 
of  noble  churchmen,  who  were  also  noble  Christians, 
to  remove  by  holy  teaching  and  pious  action  some 
of  the  blemishes  that  dimmed  the  glory  of  "  Holy 
Mother  Church."  Inasmuch  as  the  reformers  were  the 
mouthpiece  of  all  the  best  souls  (of  whom,  to  the  credit 
of  Christianity,  there  were  not  a  few)  in  the  Church 
of  that  period,  the  labours  of  each,  though  sometimes 
little  connected  with  those  of  the  other,  may  be  fittingly 
regarded  and  denominated  as  part  of  a  Movement 
towards  Catholic  Reform. 

This  movement  appears  to  have  derived  its  origin 
from  Savonarola.  Nevertheless,  it  is  proper  to  point 
out  that  he  was  its  originator  only  in  the  sense  already 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

indicated  ;  he  was  the  first  to  translate  into  spoken 
language  the  thoughts  that  were  taking  shape  in  the 
minds  of  his  contemporaries.  After  him  there  arose 
a  number  of  teachers  whose  tendencies,  some  in  one 
particular,  some  in  another,  were  in  the  same  direction 
as  his  own.  And  these,  in  so  far  as  they  reproduced  in 
any  degree  his  methods,  his  teachings,  or  his  designs, 
can  be  termed  his  successors,  although,  no  doubt, 
they  had  not  derived  their  very  agreements  with  him 
so  much  from  Savonarola  himself  as  from  the  spirit 
of  the  age  which  was  influencing  them  even  as  it  had 
previously  influenced  him.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  John 
Colet,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  may  be  represented  as  a 
successor  of  the  Florentine  preacher.  Certainly,  as  will 
be  presently  stated,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
Dominican,  probably  to  some  considerable  extent, 
affected  the  mental  outlook  of  the  English  graduate. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  additional  forces  existed,  both 
in  England  and  throughout  western  Europe,  which, 
assuredly,  had  no  small  share  in  the  moulding  of  that 
noble  life.  In  other  words,  the  influence  of  Savonarola 
upon  Colet  was  only  one  of  the  powers  by  which  the 
latter  was  swayed,  and  the  Englishman  was,  in  his  own 
way,  a  product  of  the  age  no  less  than  the  Florentine 
friar  himself.  A  like  opinion  is  to  be  expressed  con- 
cerning numerous  others  of  that  era,  of  Linacre,  Grocyn, 
More,  Fisher,  Erasmus,  Pirckheimer,  Reuchlin,  Lefevre, 
Briconnet,  the  Princess  Margaret,  Rhenanus,  Roussel, 
Bude,  and  even  (in  the  early  portion  of  his  career) 
Luther.  A  common  spirit  pervaded  their  being.  The 
"  voices  from  heaven,"  to  borrow  the  figure  of  Aegidius 
of  Viterbo,  "  had  spoken  to  them,"  and,  in  consequence, 
they  often  re-stated  the  views  of  one  another,  in  almost 
identical  terms,  without  being  guilty  of  plagiarism. 

How  far  the  personality  of  Savonarola  dominated 
the  generation  immediately  subsequent  to  his  own  can 
never  be  adequately  computed.  In  his  native  country 
he  was  affectionately  remembered,  and  many  of  his 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

compatriots  bore  the  spiritual  impressions  they  had 
received  from  him  for  many  years  after  his  death.  Yet, 
outside  the  confines  of  Italy,  only  rare  indications  of 
any  acquaintance  with  his  name  occur,  but  these,  in 
spite  of  their  fewness  and  brevity,  imply  a  greater 
knowledge  of  his  character  and  opinions  than  might, 
at  first,  be  supposed.  The  tones  of  his  voice,  as  it  were, 
echo  and  re-echo  in  the  most  unexpected  places,  at  the 
most  notable  crises,  until  they  finally  vanish  in  the 
turmoil  of  the  Reformation. 

It  was  the  Italian  expedition  of  King  Charles  VIII 
(1494-5),  which  brought  this  famous  friar  into  promi- 
nence. He  was  already  notable  as  a  preacher  of 
righteousness,  as  one  indeed  who  aroused  his  country- 
men to  a  consciousness  of  the  evils  of  that  age.  His 
endeavours  to  introduce  reforms  among  both  clergy 
and  people  had  already  been  attended  by  some  success 
when  his  activities  were  given  a  much  wider  scope  by 
the  arrival  on  Italian  soil  of  the  French  king.  That 
monarch  had  come  in  order  to  establish  his  claim  to  the 
crown  of  Naples,  but,  when  he  descended  upon  Italy, 
it  seemed  to  the  Italians  as  if  Savonarola's  prophecy  of 
the  new  Cyrus  was  receiving  speedy  fulfilment,  and  the 
minds  of  the  Florentines  were  the  more  impressed  by  the 
words  of  such  a  remarkable  man  as  the  Dominican 
appeared  to  be. 

But  King  Charles  disappointed  the  hopes  of  the 
Dominican  ;  he  made  no  attempt  to  effect  an  ameliora- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  With  marvellous  rapidity 
and  success  he  traversed  Italy  and  won  a  kingdom  ; 
with  still  greater  speed  and  no  less  good  fortune  he 
conducted  his  retreat. 

To  Florence  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  from  Italy 
was  a  severe  blow,  inasmuch  as  it  left  the  Republic  open 
to  the  assaults  of  the  League.  But  to  Savonarola,  whose 
only  protector  was  gone,  it  meant  certain  destruction. 
Around  him  the  clouds  began  to  gather.  Outside  the 
city,  his  enemies  were  seeking  to  compass  his  ruin. 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

The  Pope  was  excited  against  him,  the  Sforza  actively 
hostile,  the  Medici  solicitous  of  restoration.  Inside 
the  city,  he  waged  a  daily  contest  with  foes  who  rapidly 
grew  in  strength  and  in  capacity  for  injurious  assaults. 
No  reformer's  path  is  either  smooth  or  easy.  To  fancy 
that  it  ought  to  be  otherwise  than  difficult  is  to  expect 
the  impossible.  Yet,  where  Savonarola  is  concerned, 
the  deepest  feelings  of  commiseration  are  awakened, 
not  merely  by  a  discernment  of  the  difficulties  which 
arose  incidentally  from  the  tasks  he  had  undertaken 
to  perform,  but  by  the  reflection  that  the  very  part  of 
his  labours  which  lay  closest  to  his  heart,  the  better- 
ment of  religion  and  morals  in  Florence,  was  just  that 
in  which  he  was  destined  to  effect  the  least  results.  His 
ill  success  therein  must  be  ascribed  less  to  the  ideals 
he  harboured,  or  to  his  methods  of  realizing  them, 
than  to  the  notoriously  volatile  character  of  the  people 
with  whom  he  had  to  deal. 

During  the  stormy  days  in  which  his  life  closed,  the 
great  hope  which  supported  Savonarola  was  that  of  a 
General  Council  which  should  accomplish  the  work  of 
reform.  He  broached  it  publicly  in  his  Lenten  Sermons 
of  1497  :— 

Jesus  Christ  hath  many  servants,  and  great  numbers 
of  them,  concealed  in  Germany,  France,  and  Spain, 
are  now  bewailing  this  evil.  In  all  cities,  in  all 
manors  and  convents,  there  be  some  inspired  with  this 
fire  of  zeal.  They  send  to  whisper  somewhat  in  my 
ear,  and  I  reply  :  Remain  concealed  until  ye  hear  the 
summons — Lazare,  veni  foras  ! 

Savonarola  in  this  hope  did  not  stand  alone  :  a 
cardinal  had  declared  that  he  would  not  return  to 
Rome  until  God  reformed  the  Church,  the  general  of 
a  monastic  order  had  given  expression  to  an  eager 
longing  for  reform,  and  the  Sorbonne  had  delivered 
to  the  French  king  its  opinion  that  a  General  Council 
was  advisable.  Yet,  towards  the  end,  even  this  ex- 
pectation Savonarola  reluctantly  and  sorrowfully  gave 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

up,  observing  that  a  reforming  Council  would  have  to 
be  composed,  for  the  most  part,  of  the  very  men  who 
required  most  to  be  reformed  or  deposed. 

The  relations  between  Savonarola  and  Pope  Alex- 
ander at  this  juncture  are  not  difficult  of  comprehension. 
It  was  to  be  expected  that  the  latter  would  take  mea- 
sures in  his  own  defence.  The  endeavour  to  prove  that 
his  feelings  towards  the  Florentine  reformer  were  those 
of  appreciative  kindness  is  somewhat  beside  the 
question.  No  one  who  has  studied  the  character  of  the 
Borgia,  save  an  apologist  or  panegyrist,  is  ever  likely 
to  make  the  attempt.  Indeed  a  man  of  much  sweeter 
nature  than  Alexander  might  be  excused  easily  for 
harbouring  thoughts,  or  compassing  the  means,  of 
punishing  one  who  stood  in  the  way  of  his  projects. 
The  character  of  those  projects,  and  the  means  he  took 
to  accomplish  them,  are  what  cast  reproach  upon 
Alexander  and  justify  the  stubborn  opposition  of 
Savonarola.  That  resistance  neither  blandishments 
nor  bribes  could  turn  aside.  Hence  the  Pope's  enmity 
was  aroused,  and,  if  he  hesitated  for  some  time  to 
develop  schemes  of  vengeance,  this  is  to  be  accounted 
principally  due  to  a  lack  of  fitting  opportunity.  More- 
over, the  hints,  however  veiled,  of  the  possibility  of  a 
General  Council,  were  not  such  as  Alexander  could 
hearken  to  without  fear,  since  the  most  powerful 
member  of  the  College  of  Cardinals,  Giuliano  della 
Rovere,  afterwards  Julius  II,  was  at  this  very  time 
spreading  a  disparagement  of  his  right  to  the  papal  tiara. 

A  decision  has  been  arrived  at  regarding  the  real 
grounds  upon  which  Savonarola  suffered.  G.  F.  Pico  della 
Mirandola,  nephew  of  that  erudite  Pico  who  had  died  in 
1494,  gave,  as  from  the  lips  of  one  of  the  papal  judges, 
the  statement  that  Savonarola  was  destroyed  "non  quia 
mereretur,  sed  quia  sic  Pontifici  placuisset,  nee  Floren- 
tinis  displicuisset  "  ("  not  because  he  deserved  it,  but 
because  such  was  the  Pope's  wish  and  the  Florentines 
offered  no  objection  ").     Contemporary  apologists  for 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

Alexander,  indeed,  attempted  to  convict  the  Florentine 
preacher  of  heresy  and  disobedience  to  the  Church. 
But  the  defenders  of  the  Dominican  were  able  to 
maintain  that  the  charge  of  heresy  rested  upon  no 
doctrinal  foundation,  and  that  "  not  even  a  Pope  can 
determine  that  to  be  heretical  which  is  not."1  Beyond 
all  doubt,  the  destruction  of  Savonarola  resulted,  in 
part,  from  political  reasons,  that  is  to  say,  from  his 
political  attitude  towards  the  Pope,  and,  in  part,  from 
his  endeavours  to  have  a  General  Council  convened, 
that  is  to  say,  from  his  attitude  towards  Alexander  in 
an  ecclesiastical  aspect.  With  the  latter  reason  alone 
are  we  concerned.  It  is  the  more  serious  charge  against 
him,  because  it  lends  colour  to  the  assertion  that  he 
contemplated  a  plan  of  action  which  would  probably 
have  involved  a  schism  in  the  Christian  Church,  if  the 
chief  work  which  the  Council  would  have  had  to  accom- 
plish, viz.,  the  deposition  of  Alexander,  had  not 
eventuated  in  complete  success.8  But,  as  a  reminder 
to  all  who  advance  this  aspect  of  the  matter,  we  may 
here  remark  that  not  so  many  generations  before 
Savonarola's  times,  the  Christian  Church  had  had 
cause  for  gratitude  to  a  General  Council  for  healing  a 
a  deplorable  schism  introduced  by  rival  claimants  to 
the  papal  see ;  and,  with  the  experience  of  Pisa, 
Constance,  and  Basle  before  their  eyes,  the  Fathers  of 
the  Christian  Church  might  reasonably  be  supposed  to 
have  been  capable,  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
of  either  displacing  Alexander  or  undertaking  measures 
for  the  thorough  amendment  of  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
And,  it  must  always  be  remembered,  that  the  lack  of 
such  a  Council,  and  a  serious  decision  to  effect  the  much 
needed  reform  of  the  Church  in  its  Head  and  members, 
are  responsible  for  the  present  cleavage  of  western 

1  Vita  R.  P.  Fr.  Hieronymi  Savonarolae  Ferrariensis,  Ord.  Praedi- 
catorutn,  Authore  111.  D.  Joan.  Franc.  Pico  Mirandulae  Concordiaeque 
Principe,  Parisiis,  1 674, 1,  1 10  et  seq.,  II,  5 1 8-520. 

*  Lucas  (Herbert,  S.  J.),  Savonarola,  London,  1899,  p.  367. 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

Christendom  into  two  nearly  equal  parts,  Roman 
Catholic  and  Reformed.  Savonarola  and  the  good 
men  before  him  advocated  the  convening  of  a  reforming 
Council.  After  them,  that  excellent  Teutonic  pontiff, 
Adrian  VI,  justified  their  demands  by  acknowledging 
the  need  of  a  Council,  when  the  time  for  it  had  well-nigh 
passed  away  for  ever.  One  is  free  to  surmise  that  pos- 
sibly the  results  of  Savonarola's  scheme  of  a  General 
Council  might  truly  have  been  those  which  that  great 
man  desired  so  ardently,  and  that  they  might  have 
rendered  unnecessary  the  later  revolt  of  Luther  and 
Calvin. 

That  Savonarola  should,  in  the  heyday  of  his  pulpit 
eloquence,  have  swayed  the  best  minds  in  Florence  is 
not  wonderful.  The  strength  of  his  character,  the  force 
of  his  convictions,  and  the  essential  truth  of  the  pictures 
he  drew  of  the  degradation  of  Christianity,  were 
calculated  to  exercise  vast  influence  over  the  grave  and 
thoughtful  amongst  the  men  of  his  own  and  other 
countries.  But  that  he,  after  his  condemnation  and 
death,  should  have  continued  to  retain  the  place  he  had 
once  held  in  the  thoughts  of  the  majority  of  those  whom 
he  had  formerly  so  deeply  impressed,  was  a  thing  by  no 
means  to  be  expected.  Many  lost  the  consciousness 
of  his  ascendancy  when  his  voice  ceased  to  vibrate  in 
their  ears.  Others  felt  that  the  ecclesiastical  censures 
passed  on  him  were  evidences  that  he  had  been  an 
impostor.  Doubtless,  too,  most  of  his  ardent  followers 
experienced  a  shock  to  their  faith  when  the  awaited 
miracle  failed  to  intervene  in  time  to  save  him  from  his 
adversaries.  Ficino,  the  famous  Platonic  philosopher, 
was  only  one  of  many  who  revised  their  opinions 
altogether  as  to  the  person  and  mission  of  Savonarola. 
Consequently,  with  the  passing  of  the  Friar,  his  own 
distinctive  work,  in  its  religious  or  moral  aspect,  had 
almost  reached  annihilation.  Still,  it  would  be  very 
wrong  to  say  that  the  force  of  his  teaching  perished 
with  him.    Not  a  few  of  his  compatriots  had  received 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

an  impression  which,  apart  from  any  estimate  of  the 
man  himself,  they  bore  undimmed  throughout  their 
lives.  Michael  Angelo  is  a  notable  example  of  these. 
Savonarola's  influence  manifested  itself  chiefly  in  the 
revival  of  a  spirit  of  religious  inquiry,  the  effects  of 
which  can  be  traced  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the  small 
company  that  remained  faithful  to  his  memory.  An 
obvious  change  took  place  in  the  whole  character  of  art 
towards  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  which,  as  it 
reflected  the  operation  of  religious  forces  in  the  minds 
of  that  generation,  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing 
the  ascendancy  of  Savonarola's  teaching.  If  the  Friar 
be  represented  as  an  opponent  of  the  Classical  Renais- 
sance, it  must  be,  at  the  same  time,  recollected  that  he 
was  no  foe  to  either  literature,  philosophy,  science,  or 
art,  in  themselves,  but  only  of  the  base  uses  to  which 
they  were  put.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  to 
prove  that  he  urged  the  members  of  his  own  community 
to  study  both  Greek  and  Hebrew,  not,  it  is  true,  for 
mere  purposes  of  erudition,  but  for  increasing  their  skill 
in  the  work  of  evangelization. 

Besides  the  literati  and  artists  of  her  own  race,  Italy 
always  contained  a  large  body  of  foreign  students  and 
learned  men  passing  through  her  celebrated  academies. 
Upon  these,  no  less  than  upon  the  native  scholars,  the 
character  of  Savonarola  left  an  indelible  mark.  It  is 
curious  to  note  how  his  thoughts,  his  ideals,  almost  his 
very  words,  are  reproduced  by  them  without  any 
accompanying  mention  of  his  name.  Yet,  this  reluc- 
tance to  speak  of  the  source  of  their  aspirations  does 
not  indicate  a  depreciation  of  his  aims,  or  an  inability 
to  absorb  the  valuable  portion  of  his  doctrine  when  all 
that  was  merely  fantastic  and  illusory  about  him  had 
been  dissipated  with  his  ashes.  Accordingly,  in  sub- 
sequent years,  though  Colet  in  England  and  Lefevre  in 
France  afford  tokens  of  opinions  closely  similar  to 
Savonarola's,  and  though  both  visited  Italy  at  a  time 
when  the  thunder  of  the  preacher's  Florentine  sermons 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

was  echoing  through  that  country,  no  word  escapes  them 
as  to  any  knowledge  of  the  man's  existence.  If  it  were 
not  for  the  course  of  their  own  thoughts,  one  might 
freely  surmise  that  they  had  never  heard  of  him.  For 
all  that,  at  the  twelfth  and  final  sitting  of  the  Lateran 
Council,  which  ended  16th  March,  1517,  Savonarola's 
apologist  and  biographer,  Giovanni  Francesco  Pico 
della  Mirandola,  presented  to  the  Pope  an  Oratio  de 
Reformandis  Moribns  that  recalled  the  censures  of  the 
Prophet-Preacher. 

It  was  strange  that  the  flaming  words  of  the  pro- 
phet should  rise  once  more  from  the  grave  at  the 
moment  when  their  terrible  prophecy  was  to  be  ful- 
filled in  Germany.1 

To  these  words  Luther's  own  bear  witness  when,  in 
his  short  preface  to  the  Wittenberg  (1523)  edition  of 
Savonarola's  Meditatio  pia  super  Psalmos  31  et  51,  he 
voiced  the  sentiments  of  many  outside  the  Dominican's 
adherents  : 

The  Papacy  had  ventured  to  think  that  by  its  male- 
diction it  had  extinguished  the  memory  of  so  great  a 
man ;  but  behold  he  lives !  and  is  held  in  blessed 
remembrance.3 

Contemporary  historians  might,  where  possible, 
suppress  all  mention  of  him,  as  Cardinal  Bembo  in  his 
bilingual  History  of  Venice,  or  accord  him  scant  and 
depreciatory  notices,  as  Guicciardini  in  his  History  of 
the  Wars  of  Italy,  and  Paulus  Jovius  in  his  Vita  LeonisX, 
lib.  I.,  and  in  his  Historiarum  Sui  Tcmporis  lib.  V, 
nevertheless,  as  Luther  truly  said,  his  memory  endured, 
and  his  teachings  found  many  a  home  in  far  distant 
lands. 

For  the  class  of  reformers  of  whom  the  great  Domini- 
can was  the  first  in  point  of  time,  and  perhaps  also  in 
magnanimity,  no  better  generic  title  is  to  be  found, 

1  Camb.Mod.  Hist.,  II,  31. 

■  Luthers  JVerke,  Weimar  edition,  XII,  248. 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

descriptive  of  their  outlook  upon  contemporary  religion 
and  the  propriety  of  ecclesiastical  order,  than  that  of 
Catholic  Reformers.  Since,  however,  that  title  has 
been,  by  common  usage,  in  the  Roman  obedience, 
confined  to  those  who,  about  the  time  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  affected  some  measures  of  ecclesiastical  im- 
provement among  the  adherents  of  the  Papacy,  an 
explanation  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  employed  in  this 
present  treatise  might  appear  suitable,  indeed  absolutely 
necessary. 

Savonarola,  at  the  close  of  his  career,  was  in  conflict 
with  the  wearer  of  the  papal  tiara.  For  all  that,  it 
would  be  misleading  to  imagine  that  he,  at  any  time, 
regarded  the  papal  supremacy  in  a  manner  similar  to 
that  in  which  Luther  came  to  view  it.  He  believed  in 
the  catholicity  of  the  Church  as  a  necessary  attribute 
of  that  divine  institution,  and,  as  all  corporate  bodies 
must  have  a  head,  he  sincerely  accepted  the  headship 
of  the  Roman  See.  His  quarrel  with  Alexander  VI  was 
not  a  quarrel  with  the  Head  of  the  Church,  but  with 
Roderigo  Borgia.  Neither  to  him  nor  to  the  reforming 
teachers  who  followed  him  did  their  right  to  be  consi- 
dered Catholics  altogether  depend  on  the  quality  of  their 
allegiance  to  the  Roman  See.  That  is  to  say,  since  the 
Universal  Church  found  and  recognized  in  the  local 
Roman  Church  its  mother  and  mistress,  western 
Christians  generally,  in  that  epoch,  believed  it  essential 
to  their  catholicity  to  adhere  to  Rome  and  serve  its 
bishops  loyally  ("  Ecclesiam  Romanam  agnosco,  quam 
opinor  a  catholica  non  dissentire  " — Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
544A).  But  that  they  entertained  a  doctrine  of  alle- 
giance to  the  Papacy  such  as  has  been  propounded  in 
more  modern  times  is  very  far  from  being  a  fact.  There 
were,  indeed,  among  them  too  many  consummate 
theologians  for  them  to  be  misled  into  the  idea  that  the 
ancient  Fathers  of  the  Church  had  ever  conceived  of  any 
other  principal  ground  for  catholicity  than  pure  doc- 
trine.    For  when,  in  those  early  days  of  Christianity, 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

the  orthodox  used  to  oppose  the  catholicity  of  the 
Church  to  the  sectarianism  of  the  heretics,  they  referred 
to  the  purity  of  the  Church's  teaching.  Yet  even  in 
this  use  of  the  term  the  word  had  a  larger  signification 
which  was  never  quite  out  of  sight.  As  an  appellation 
"  Catholic  "  implied  unity,  and  with  SS.  Cyprian  and 
Augustine  it  possessed  this  technical  sense  almost 
entirely.  St.  Augustine  frequently  used  catholica  as 
"  a  current  expression,  a  substantive,  of  which  the 
sense  is  invariably  that  of  ecclesia  catholica,  and  never 
that  of  fides  or  religio.  It  is  not  the  African  doctor  who 
introduces  the  locution  :  he  naturalizes  it,  as  one  may 
say,  for  towards  340  .  .  .  the  word  had  made  its  way 
and  become  popular.  ...  No  Donatist,  if  a  stranger 
were  to  ask  him  the  way  to  the  Catholica,  would  have 
dreamt  of  directing  him  to  a  Donatist  church."1 
Nor  in  the  subsequent  ages  were  these  two  complemen- 
tary parts  of  the  connotation  forgotten.  The  teachings 
of  the  Church,  on  the  contrary,  were  universal  within 
the  limits  of  the  world  as  then  known.  Here  was  a 
ready  and  unanswerable  apologia  for  orthodox  Christen- 
dom :  the  Catholic  faith  had  an  irrefutable  witness  to 
its  truth  in  the  local  extension  which  its  purity  had  won 
for  it,  and  the  strength  of  a  fait  accompli  as  against  a 
mere  tentative  suggestion. 

But  universality  could  not  exist  except  by  means 
of  an  ordered  unity,  the  general  recognition  of  a  cen- 
tralizing authority.  That  centre  was  found  in  the 
episcopate  ;  the  highest  court  of  appeal  in  Christendom 
known  during  the  first  six  centuries  or  more  was  the 
oecumenical  convocation  of  bishops  or  General  Council. 
Undoubtedly,  in  those  times,  the  Christian  Church 
presented  the  appearance  of  a  commonwealth  in  which 
the  episcopate  exercised  the  functions  of  government. 
Among  the  bishops  one  stood  pre-eminent.     His  see 

1  Dom  H.  Leclercq,  in  Cabrol,  Dictionnaire  d'  Archiologie  chritienne 
et  de  Liturgie,  Paris  (Letouzey  et  An6,  6diteurs),  1910,  t.  2,  2me.  partie, 
col.  2631-2. 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

retained  somewhat  of  the  glamour  which  still  lingered 
round  the  ancient  metropolis,  and  gained  no  little  pres- 
tige from  its  traditional  connection  with  the  Apostles 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul.  The  records  of  the  early  days  of 
Christianity  manifest  the  veneration  and  respect  paid 
to  the  Church  of  Rome  and  its  bishop  by  the  rest  of 
Christendom.  But  its  bishop,  if  he  was  accorded  the 
place  of  first  patriarch  of  the  Church,  was  only  regarded 
as  primus  inter  pares  ;  his  jurisdiction  was  not 
accounted  different  in  character  from  that  exercised 
by  his  less  prominent  fellow-bishops.1  Not  until  the 
Carolingian  period  did  the  Papacy  attain  a  semblance 
of  "  monarchical "  authority.  Even  during  the 
centuries  subsequent  to  Charlemagne  the  power  of  the 
pope  advanced  only  by  slow  degrees. 

By  the  fifteenth  century  his  authority  had  become 
by  universal  assent  in  western  Europe  the  regimen  of  a 
monarch,  but  not  yet  that  of  an  absolute  monarch  ; 
there  still  lingered  in  the  public  mind  the  common 
belief  that  in  the  unanimity  of  opinion  expressed  by  an 
(Ecumenical  or  General  Council  was  to  be  found  the 
most  certain  means  for  ascertaining  the  mind  of  the 
Church  Universal.2     With  the  pontificate  of  Pius  II, 

1  Since  the  sixteenth  century,  S.  Cyprian's  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae  has 
been  cited  as  evidence  that  the  bishops  of  Rome  occupied  in  the  third 
century  a  monarchical  position,  as  for  instance  (in  the  early  seventeenth 
century)  by  Duvallius,  De  suprema  Rom.  Pont,  in  Eccl.  potest.,  pan 
prima,  quaestio  II,  sect.  II,  and  quite  recently  by  Thurston  and  Joyce  in 
Herbermann's  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  III,  sub  vocibus  "  Catholic"  and 
"  Church."  Dr.  Bright  has,  however,  made  it  clear  that  not  only  has 
St.  Cyprian's  doctrine  of  unity  been  misapplied,  but  that  St.  Augustine's 
acknowledgment  of  Roman  auctoritas  did  not  by  any  means  include 
an  admission  of  papal  supremacy  {Roman  See  in  the  Early  Church, 
London,  1896,  sections  (VI)  and  (XVIII),  pp.  39  et  seq.,  126  et  seq.). 

1  It  is  not  without  some  sympathetic  interest  that  we  note  the 
ingenuous  confession  of  the  late  Dr.  James  Gairdner  to  a  like  belief  : 
"There  is  one  sense  in  which  I  myself  would  confess  that  the  Church 
cannot  err  .  .  .  Undoubtedly,  His  followers  do  possess  among  them, 
taken  as  a  whole,  a  fund  of  truth  which  cannot  possibly  be  diminished  or 
weakened  as  we  go  on." — Lollardy  and  the  Reformation  in  England,  III, 
Introd.,  p.  XIX. 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

however,  a  new  theory  of  papal  government  came  into 
being  :  the  precedency  of  honour  and  respect  had 
advanced  to  a  precedency  of  right  which  in  its  turn 
had  given  place  to  a  monarchical  jurisdiction,  but  now 
the  Papacy  demanded,  in  fact,  the  jurisdiction  of  an 
absolute  monarch.  But  churchmen  generally  were  slow 
to  change  the  conception  of  ecclesiastical  authority 
with  which  they  had  grown,  during  so  many  ages, 
familiar.  In  their  eyes  the  pope  was  incontestably  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  but  they  had  not  as  yet  arrived  at 
the  point  of  regarding  him  as  its  supreme  and  irres- 
ponsible ruler  on  earth  ;  General  Councils  were  still, 
in  their  thought,  the  final  court  of  appeal  in  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is,  accordingly,  impossible  to 
find  before  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  any 
extensive  acceptance  of  this  new  theory,  except  by 
the  extreme  partisans  of  the  Curia.  And,  indeed,  a 
considerable  number  of  the  thinking  men  of  this  era 
(the  early  decades  of  the  sixteenth  century)  had,  in 
consequence  of  their  patristic  studies,  reverted  to  the 
ancient  estimate  of  the  relative  values  of  the  authority 
of  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  (Ecumenical  Councils. 
Even  Aegidius  of  Viterbo  and  Pope  Adrian  VI  felt  that 
the  papal  claims  to  supreme  authority  in  the  Church 
had  been  excessive  and  detrimental  to  the  good  of 
Christendom.1 

At  the  period,  therefore,  with  which  we  are  dealing, 
the  age  of  Savonarola  and  the  first  couple  of  decades 
after  him,  the  right  to  be  considered  a  Catholic  did  not, 
in  general  estimation,  depend  upon  an  acceptance  of 

1  Vita  Savonarolae,  I,  108:  Epist.  Lutheri,  fol.  166,  191  vo. — 193. 
Cp.  Camb.  Mod.  Hist.,  II,  32. 

For  a  statement  of  the  claim  to  an  absolute  monarchical  jurisdiction, 
see  Duvallius,  pars  prima,  quaestio  VIII.  (pp.  87-91  in  Puyol's  edition), 
and  M.  le  comte  J.  de  Maistre,  D11  Pape,  Lyon  et  Paris,  1821,  liv.  I,  chap. 
I -VI,  and  liv.  IV,  chap.  V.  The  Constitutio  dogmatica  prima  de  Ecclesia 
Christi  issued  during  the  fourth  session  of  the  Vatican  Council  of  1870 
(appended  by  Puyol  to  his  edition  of  Duvallius)  contains  the  ultimate 
definition  of  it. 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

papal  absolutism.  A  man  was  then  a  Catholic  if  he 
embraced  sincerely  the  doctrines  and  dogmas  of  the 
Church  which  had  been  defined  by  authority,  so  far  as 
they  were  understood  to  be  so  defined,  and  if  he  also 
recognized  the  essential  unity  of  the  Church  and  the 
centralized  regimen  which  that  united  organization 
rendered  inevitable.1 

Consequently,  among  the  declarations  of  those  who 
are  here  termed  Catholic  Reformers  may  be  found 
frequent  protestations  of  their  submissiveness  to  the 
papal  jurisdiction  :  their  yearning  desires  to  improve 
the  state  of  contemporary  religion  are  equalled  by  their 
anxiety  to  succeed  in  this  without  impugning  that 
authority. 

It  is  true  that  the  aims  of  these  men  were  inherently 
futile,  and  the  fidelity  with  which  they  pursued  them 
might  have  been  fittingly  described  as  pathetic,  if 
tragic  had  not  been  a  more  suitable  word  for  implying 
the  perils,  sufferings,  and  misconceptions  into  which 
their  projects  led  them.  Their  lot,  in  truth,  was  cast  in 
an  era  when  two  parties  which  represented  antagonistic 
ideals  of  progress  came  for  the  first  time  face  to  face 
in  opposition.  Not  that  their  enterprise  was  in  itself 
puerile  or  unsuitable  for  the  needs  of  Christendom  ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  reflected  the  highest  honour  on  their 
piety  and  their  disinterested  zeal  for  the  purification 
of  religion.  But  it  did  not  harmonize  with  the  genius  of 
their  age.  With  neither  class  of  antagonists  could  the 
Catholic  reformers  feel  in  sympathy,  and  their  own 
strivings  after  a  Catholic  reformation  were  not  in 
accord  with  the  plans  of  either  side.  To  the  adherents 
of  the  one  party,  therefore,  Erasmus  was  a  traitor,  a 
heretic  ;  to  the  enthusiasts  of  the  other  party  a 
cowardly  dissembler,  a  Balaam  ;  to  some  Lefevre  was 
a  heretic,  but  to  others  a  timid,  remorseful  creature  ; 
and,  earlier  still,  when  as  yet  there  were  no  parties, 

1  Cp.  Sir  Thos.  More's  ep.  to  Crumwel — Strype,  Ecclesiastical  Memorials, 
etc.,  Clarendon  Press,  1822,  vol.  I,  pt.  II,  pp.  201-2. 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

Colet  was  regarded  by  some  as  disloyal  and  censorious, 
by  others  as  unprogressive  and  reactionary.  All  three 
would  have  been  condemned  to  death  if  their  enemies 
could  have  obtained  the  fulfilment  of  their  wishes. 
So,  too,  in  the  previous  generation,  Savonarola  was 
represented  as  a  charlatan,  an  imposter,  a  rebel,  but 
also  as  not  prudent  or  ambitious  enough  to  be  a  revo- 
lutionist— not  perfect  enough  for  an  angel  from  heaven, 
nor  bold  enough  for  a  villain.  The  seeming  incon- 
sistencies which  these  reformers  brought  into  their 
performance  of  the  noble  works  they  had  taken  in 
hand  came  entirely  from  a  desire  to  introduce  the  new 
without  violently  displacing  the  old.  Many  Christians 
of  the  present  day  will  find  it  hard  to  repress  a  sigh  at 
the  regretful  circumstance  that  the  scheme  of  peaceful 
reform,  of  spreading  biblical  knowledge,  of  making 
religion  purer  and  more  accordant  with  the  Master's 
wishes,  which  these  good  men  advocated  or  promoted, 
did  not  prove  successful.  The  story  of  their  attempt 
and  failure  is,  unfortunately,  not  an  isolated  one. 
It  has  recurred  again  and  again,  on  countless  occasions, 
since  the  first  beginnings  of  human  history,  whenever 
grave  changes  have  been  under  consideration.  At  all 
such  times,  there  are  certain  to  be  two  hostile  parties 
in  conflict,  but  just  as  certainly  a  number  of  men  are  to 
be  found  standing  between  them,  capable  of  perceiving 
the  amount  of  justice  and  right  which  belongs  to  each 
side,  but  prevented,  by  that  very  insight,  from  resisting 
or  espousing  the  cause  of  either.  And  men  of  this  type, 
the  men  of  moderate  counsel,  have  nearly  always  pur- 
sued the  middle  course,  not  from  any  desire  to  escape 
the  possible  misfortunes  of  partisanship,  but  from 
conscientious  scruples.  How  often,  alas,  have  they 
failed  !  How  often  has  their  advice  proved  unaccept- 
able, and  received  the  condemnatory  epithet  of  luke- 
warmness  I  How  often,  too,  have  they  been  accused  of 
interested  motives  !  And  strange  as  it  may  appear,  in 
almost  every  case  the  moderate  men  have  represented 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

the  majority  of  their  contemporaries  ;  the  extremists, 
those  who  vociferated  so  loudly,  on  the  one  side  or  the 
other,  have  seldom  indeed  had  a  large  following — for 
example,  in  regard  to  the  conflict  of  religious  teachers 
in  France  during  the  second  decade  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  neither  Noel  Beda  nor  Guillaume  Farel  can 
be  taken  as  the  true  spokesman  of  their  compatriots. 

In  recent  historical  works,  which  have  had  this  period 
under  review,  particulars  more  or  less  accurate  have 
been  given  of  the  events  and  persons  that  occupy  the 
chapters  which  here  follow.  Professor  Lindsay,  in  his 
History  of  the  Reformation — to  mention  one  amongst 
several  notable  English  books— furnishes  an  admirably 
full  and  reliable  account  of  them.  And  indeed,  so 
valuable  is  this  part  of  his  work  that,  if  he  had  set  them 
forth  in  a  just  perspective,  he  would  have  anticipated 
the  main  purpose  of  our  own  treatise.  But  the  arrange- 
ment of  his  information  into  a  series  of  biographies  is 
calculated  to  impress  upon  a  reader  two  wrong  notions : 
that  the  life-work  of  each  personage  stood  alone,  was 
centred  in  itself,  and  that  it  merely  formed,  as  it  were, 
a  separate  little  rivulet  which  emptied  itself  into  the 
great  flood  of  the  Protestant  Reformation.  A  truer 
representation  of  their  life-work  would  have  been  to  have 
depicted  it  as  part  of  a  movement,  which,  in  actual  fact, 
was  independent  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  and 
which  can  be  said  to  have  been  introductory  to  that 
subsequent  revolt  only  in  the  sense  that  it  preceded  it. 
Moreover,  without  seeking  to  detract  from  the  ex- 
cellence of  Professor  Lindsay's  production,  we  believe 
he  entirely  misstates  the  religious  and  mental  standpoint 
of  Colet,  Lef&vre,  and  the  rest,  when  he  terms  them 
"  Christian  Humanists."  No  doubt  we  can  imagine 
that  he  experienced  a  difficulty  in  finding  a  suitable 
appellation  which  would  adequately  denote  the  opinions 
and  ideas  of  the  class  of  men  to  whom  they  belonged. 
But  Mr.  Seebohm  has  afforded  a  clue  to  the  fittest  name 
for   them    by   denominating   three    of   them    (Colet, 


xxx  INTRODUCTION 

Erasmus,  and  More)  Oxford  Reformers.  They  were 
indeed  Reformers  ;  and  by  no  stretch  of  signification 
could  Colet,  or  Fisher,  or  Lefevre,  or  Briconnet,  or 
Roussel,  be  included  among  humanists.  This  con- 
ception of  themselves  they,  in  their  life-time,  omitted 
no  opportunity  of  denying.  Erasmus,  Bude,  and  per- 
haps More,  might  be  fairly  described  as  Christian 
Humanists,  but  unquestionably  none  of  the  rest.  It 
is  observable  how  all  of  them  clung  to  their  catholicity, 
and  they  would  have  been  grievously  hurt  if  they  had 
known  that  any  one  at  any  time  would  have  been 
unable  to  realize  that,  however  they  might  be  reformers 
by  inclination,  they  were  Catholics  by  conviction.  Their 
glory  is  that  they  maintained  undimmed  throughout 
their  career  their  ideal  of  the  Church  of  Christ  as  a 
Catholic  society,  and  that  no  possible  combination  of 
self-interest  with  hopes  of  success  for  their  schemes 
could  have  availed  to  detach  them  from  that  Catholic 
unity.  By  those  who  had  begun  to  arrogate  to  them- 
selves the  name  of  Catholic  in  a  hitherto  unusual  sense, 
their  plans  for  spreading  evangelical  truth  might  be 
frustrated ;  their  designs,  and  their  methods  of 
accomplishing  them  impugned  ;  their  own  persons  and 
characteristics  held  up  to  public  reprobation  ;  their 
peace  disturbed,  their  lives  jeopardized  ;  but  loyal  they 
remained  to  the  Divine  Lord's  appointment  that  His 
Church  should  be  one  in  Him. 

Professor  Henry  Lemonnier,  in  Lavisse's  Histoire 
de  France,  tome  V,  has  formed  a  just  conception  of  the 
standpoint  from  which  Lefevre  and  his  friends  viewed 
the  whole  question  of  reformation.  He  has  termed  the 
movement  they  conducted  La  Reforme  fiacifique.  A 
happier  title  it  would  be  difficult  to  invent.  We  feel 
that  if  the  scope  of  the  historical  work  towards  which 
he  was  contributing  had  allowed  him  to  include  the 
measures  of  peaceful  reform  attempted  in  other  nations 
besides  France,  Professor  Lemonnier  would  have 
treated  the  entire  movement  with  similar  good  fortune 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

and  accuracy.  Erudite  Frenchmen,  however,  in  these 
days,  are  inclined  to  dwell  with  rather  too  much  em- 
phasis upon  the  literary  side  of  all  the  activities  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  We  do  not  deny,  for  we  cannot, 
that  that  side  did  exist,  and,  moreover,  that  it  was 
important.  But  if  the  writings  of  the  past  have  erred 
in  dealing  almost  exclusively  with  the  religious  aspect 
of  the  life-work  of  such  men  as  Lefevre  in  France  and 
of  Reuchlin  and  Erasmus  in  Germany,  this  error  will 
not  be  corrected  by  an  exaggeration  of  the  literary. 
Their  labours  bore,  undoubtedly,  a  dual  aspect.  In 
one  sense,  Lefevre  was  a  philosopher,  an  Aristotelian  ; 
in  another,  an  expounder  of  the  Scriptures,  and  a 
religious  reformer.  From  one  point  of  view,  Erasmus 
was  an  eminent  humanist ;  from  another,  a  pioneer  of 
biblical  criticism,  who  consecrated  his  marvellous 
learning  to  the  service  of  religion.  In  one  sense, 
Reuchlin  was  a  profound  hebraist,  versed  in  oriental 
lore  and  mysticism ;  in  another,  a  champion  of  biblical 
studies.  We  frankly  confess  to  a  belief  that  no  narra- 
tive of  the  lives  and  works  of  these  persons  will  be 
complete  if  it  does  not  estimate  truly  the  two  directions 
of  their  activities. 


THE   MOVEMENT  TOWARDS 
CATHOLIC  REFORM   IN  THE 
EARLY   SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 

CHAPTER   I 

BIBLE   TEACHING   AT   OXFORD   BEFORE   COLET 

About  the  time  of  the  French  invasion  a  young 
Englishman,  John  Colet  by  name,  was  travelling 
through  Italy  for  purposes  of  study  and  education. 
He  had  already  graduated  M.A.  at  Oxford,  and  had 
spent  some  time  in  the  University  of  Orleans.1 

Of  his  youth  and  early  manhood  few  particulars  are 
available.  He  was  the  eldest,  and  only  surviving,  child 
of  a  numerous  family  born  to  Henry  and  Christian 
Colet  in  London.  The  exact  date  of  his  birth  is  not 
known,  but  Erasmus,  by  stating  that  Colet  was  two  or 
three  months  younger  than  himself,  has  provided  a 
means  of  calculating  it  with  a  remarkable  degree  of 
accuracy.  This  would  fix  upon  the  early  days  of  1467 
as  the  approximate  date  of  Colet's  birth.8  His  father 
by  success  in  business  as  a  mercer  and  by  the  political 
connections  with  the  Tudor  house  which  resulted  from 

1  Erasmi  Opera,  Lugduni  Batavorum  1703 — ,  III,  456A,  182B; 
Lupton  (J.  H.),  Life  of  Colet,  London,  1887,  p.  43. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  456c;  Nichols  (F.  M.),  Letters  of  Erasmus  to  his 
fifty-first  year,  London,  1901-4,  1, 13-14  and  App.  V. ;  Allen  (P.  S.),  Opus 
Epistolarum  Des.  Erasmi  Roterodami,  Clarendon  Press,  1906-1910,  I,  578. 
Allen,  in  his  App.  II  to  vol.  I,  says  that  Nichols  is  probably  correct  in 
assigning  27-28  October  1466  as  the  most  likely  date  of  Erasmus's  birth. 


2  BIBLE   TEACHING   AT   OXFORD 

his  marriage  with  a  lady  whose  family  was  allied  to 
thai  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  became  a  person  of 
(. "HMderable  importance.  Twice,  that  is  to  say,  in 
i486  and  1495,  Henry  Colet  was  Lord  Mayor  of  London. 
Before  the  second  occasion  he  had  attained  the  honour 
of  knighthood.  As  can  be  easily  imagined,  Sir  Henry 
Colet  had  powerful  interest  at  hand  for  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal advancement  of  his  son.  Accordingly,  we  find  that 
Colet,  whilst  still  3'oung  and  a  layman,  gained  possession 
of  four  parochial  charges.1  In  addition,  he  occupied 
two  prebends,  that  of  Good-Easter  in  St.  Martin's-le- 
Grand  and  that  of  Botivant  in  York.  Other  prefer- 
ments were  received  by  Colet,  but  those  recited  fell  to 
him  before  he  arrived  even  at  Deacon's  orders.  Yet, 
when  compared  with  numerous  other  lists  of  that 
period,  his  is  quite  a  modest  one.  It  has  to  be  remem- 
bered that,  in  those  days,  the  heaping  of  dignity  upon 
dignity  and  benefice  upon  benefice  was  not  looked  upon 
as  constituting  a  wrong  done  to  either  Church  or 
people.  Such  accumulations  of  preferment  were 
regarded  as  collections  of  marks  of  honour,  and  the 
more  benefices  a  man  then  held  the  more  clearly  defined 
was  his  importance  in  the  world.  Although  Wolsey  in 
England  and  Georges  d'Amboise  in  France,  both  of 
them  ministers  and  favourites  of  their  respective 
monarchs,  obtained,  either  for  themselves  or  their 
relatives,  many  promotions,2  they  were  easily  outdis- 
tanced, in  their  own  time,  by  Cardinal  Giovanni  de' 
Medici,  of  whom  it  is  said  that  "  he  held  twenty-seven 
separate  offices,  of  which  the  abbeys  of  Fonte  Dulce, 
Passignano,  and  Monte  Cassino  were  among  the  most 
lucrative."3 

1  Lupton,  Colet,  chap.  VII  ;  Knight  (Dr.  S.),  Life  of  Colet,  Oxford 
1823,  App.  II,  p.  279  ;  Seebohm  (F.),  Oxford  Reformers,  London,  1896, 
App.  D. 

2  Gait  (John),  Life  of  Wolsey,  London,  1846,  p.  12  ;  Taunton  (E.  L.), 
Thomas  Wolsey,  Legate  and  Reformer,  London,  1902,  pp.  31-35  ;  Creigh- 
ton  (Bp.  Mandell),  Hist,  of  the  Papacy,  London,  1899,  'V,  308,  V,  64,  102. 

3  Vaughan  (Herbert  M.),  The  Medici  Popes,  London,  1908,  p.  10. 


NEED  OF  INSTRUCTION  IN  RELIGION       3 

As  to  the  reasons  which  induced  Colet  to  devote  him- 
self to  the  study  and  exposition  of  the  Bible  no  sufficient 
information  is  obtainable.  Possibly  he  gradually 
realized  that  some  courageous  efforts  ought  to  be  made 
to  revive  religious  knowledge.  This  process  may  have 
begun  early  in  his  life,  perhaps  during  his  student  years 
at  Oxford,  perhaps  during  his  home-life  in  London.  In 
either  place,  he  was  likely  enough  to  have  imbibed  some 
ideas  of  the  kind  from  Lollard  sources,  which,  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  were  neither  few  nor 
unknown,  though  proscribed.1  From  what  is  known  of 
Colet 's  character,  the  inference  is  a  fair  one  that  he 
must  have  been  troubled  and  dissatisfied  with  the  low 
condition  of  religious  knowledge  which  he  observed  all 
around  him  in  England,  and  still  less  content  with  the 
unfitness  of  the  general  body  of  the  parochial  clergy 
for  the  discharge  of  pastoral  functions. 

He  beheld  religion  at  a  low  ebb  in  England,  but  when 
he  went  on  his  foreign  travels,  his  mind,  already  bent 
on  the  observation  of  the  state  of  religion,  received  from 
every  side  impressions  of  such  a  nature  as  to  impel 
him  to  adopt  some  course  of  action  which  might  be 
useful  to  effect  amendment.  Amid  the  classic  culture 
of  Italy  he  saw  open,  manifest  paganism  ;  under  the 
papal  tiara,  ambition  and  lust  ;  under  the  mitre, 
intrigue,  hatred,  and  revenge  ;  among  the  princes, 
neither  good  faith,  nor  justice,  nor  desire  for  peace.  He 
saw  the  Head  of  the  Church  in  league  with  the  Infidel, 
though  the  latter  was  threatening  to  advance  to  the 
further   conquest   of   Christian   territory.2     In   every 

1  Gairdner  (James,  C.  B.,  LL.D.),  Lollardy  and  the  Reformation  in 
England,  London,  1908 — ,  I,  100  :  "  Even  when  its  first  violence  was 
subdued,  Lollardy  remained  a  latent  power  in  the  community.  Its 
leaven,  indeed,  was  very  widely  diffused.  Its  teachings,  for  good  or  evil, 
have  influenced  human  thought  and  action  more  or  less  through  all 
succeeding  centuries.  They  mingled  with  and  domineered  over  the 
Reformation,  though  they  did  not  bring  it  on." 

2  Observe  the  curious  and  disgraceful  negotiations  between  Pope 
Alexander  and  the  Sultan  Bajazet  regarding  the  captivity  of  Prince  Djem 


4  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

direction  he  perceived  that  faith  was  dying,  or  dead, 
and  that  an  insane  credulity  had  led  a  sceptical  race 
to  put  reliance  in  astrological  forecasts  and  talismans.1 
All  this  and  much  more  he  beheld,  and  it  seemed  to 
acquaint  him  with  the  great  need  of  the  period — a 
religion,  or  rather  the  restoration  of  religion  to  an 
effectual  exercise  of  its  vivifying  powers.8  From  the 
midst  of  the  iniquity  and  irreligion  he  heard  the 
thunder  of  the  Prophet-preacher  endeavouring  to  turn 
Florence,  and  Italy  with  her,  to  Christ.  He  could  not 
foresee  that  the  very  people  for  whom  Savonarola  was 
then  labouring  would  in  the  end  burn  their  prophet. 
All  that  he  saw  and  heard  in  his  travels  assisted  in 
shaping  the  resolution  which  was  forming  in  his  mind. 
There  is  no  record  concerning  the  time  of  Colet's 
travels  in  Italy  or  the  places  he  visited  in  that  country. 
We  only  know  that,  having  concluded  his  University 
course  at  Oxford,  he  travelled  through  France  and  Italy 
about  the  time  of  King  Charles's  fruitless  expedition  to 
Naples.  If  Colet  followed  in  the  track  of  the  French 
army,  he  came  to  Florence  at  the  moment  when  the 

at  Rome — Diary  of  John  Burchard  of  Strasburg,  Eng.  trans,  by  Dr. 
A.  H.  Mathew,  London,  1910,  pp.  239-246,  381  et  seq.;  Creighton.  IV, 
225,  239,  App.  9  ;  Pastor  (Dr.  L.),  Hist,  of  the  Popes,  edited  by  Antrobus 
and  Kerr,  London,  1891 — ,  V,  428-430,  465  ;  cf.  Bembo  (Card.  Petrus), 
Rerum  V  enetarvm  Historiae  (Opere,  Venice,  1729,  torn.  I),  pp.  24-25,  37. 

1  Armstrong  (E.),  Lorenzo  de'  Medici,  London,  1900,  p.  342  ;  Roscoe 
(T.),  Leo  X,  Liverpool,  1805,  I,  274  and  IV,  78  ;  Lodovico  the  Moor 
used  to  consult  his  astrologer  in  important  affairs,  see  Villari  (Prof. 
Pasquale),  Machiavelli,  Eng.  trans,  by  Linda  Villari,  London,  1883,  Intro, 
chap.  IV,  2.  Cp.  the  words  of  Savonarola  in  a  sermon  preached  during 
Advent,  1493 — Villari  (Prof.  P.),  Savonarola,  Eng.  trans,  by  Linda 
Villari,  London,  1889,  I,  183. 

'Abbot  Gasquet,  Eve  of  the  Reformation,  London,  1900,  chap.  X,  is 
correct  in  saying  that  there  were  many  instances  of  simple  piety  at  that 
period.  These  examples,  however,  do  not  destroy  the  mass  of  evidence 
that  can  be  adduced  to  show  that  the  Christian  religion  was  then  in  a 
perilous  state  through  the  degradation  into  which  it  had  fallen.  The 
cases  of  church  benefactions  which  the  learned  Benedictine  cites  are  not 
adequate  proofs  that  the  spirit  of  devotion  was  deep,  active,  and  in- 
elligent.    Cp.  Erasmus,  Annotationes,  4th  edit.,  p.  183. 


SAVONAROLA'S  INFLUENCE  ON  COLET   5 

Dominican  was  denouncing  woes  upon  Italy  and  the 
Church,  and  delivering  sermons  upon  the  books  of  the 
Bible  of  a  kind  seldom  heard  in  those  days.  From  such 
a  consideration  would  follow  the  natural  inference  that 
Savonarola  exerted  direct  or  indirect  influence  upon  him 
in  turning  his  mind  towards  the  need  of  reform.  The 
statement  of  Erasmus,  regarding  Colet  in  Italy,  that 
"  there  he  gave  himself  up  wholly  to  the  study  of  the 
sacred  writers,"1  deserves  notice,  especially  because  the 
Italian  students  of  that  day  usually  concerned  them- 
selves only  with  the  practical  side  of  ecclesiastical 
studies,  namely,  Canon  Law,  as  at  Bologna.2  Colet, 
in  short,  was  just  as  likely  to  have  devoted  himself  to 
the  study  of  the  Bible  in  England  as  in  Italy,  unless 
there  had  been  some  potent  agency  present  in  the  latter 
country  which  administered  to  him  a  strong  impulse 
towards  that  course.  And,  further,  this  supposition 
gains  confirmation  from  the  additional  assertion  that 
his  biblical  studies  were  the  outcome  of  a  determination 
formed  during  his  Italian  journey  to  preach  Gospel 
sermons  to  his  own  people.  It  seems  evident  that  it 
was  the  fiery  preacher  of  righteousness  in  Florence  who 
had  aroused  the  spirit  of  the  sober-minded  young 
Englishman.  On  many  points  of  doctrine  Colet  has 
expressed  opinions  which  have  afforded  additional 
reasons  for  arriving  at  the  same  conclusion.3 

Yet,  strange  to  say,  never  once  does  Colet  mention 
Savonarola  or  give  a  sign  that  he  had  heard  of  him. 
His  silence  would  appear  to  be  quite  as  intentional  as 

1  Eras.  Op.  Ill,  456A  ;  Pol.  Vcrgilii  Urb.,  Anglicae  historiac,  lib. 
XXVI,  Basileac,  1546,  ad  jincm  :  "  Se  ad  divinarum  literarum  studium 
contulit,  et  Paulum  sibi  praeceptorem  dclegit,  in  eoque  cum  Oxonij  et 
Cantabrigiae,  turn  in  Italia,  ita  excrcuir,  ut  homo  {actus  ad  unguem, 
sicut  aiunt,  cum  domum  redijt,  coeperit  Londini  ubi  natus  est,  Paulinas 
legere  epistolas,  et  in  tcmplis  saepe  concionari.  .  .  ." 

2  Rashdall  (Dr.  Hastings),  Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
Clarendon  Press,  1895,  I,  251-3. 

3  Seebohm,  pp.  37,  38,  and  notes,  institutes  a  comparison  between 
the  doctrines  of  Savonarola  and  Colet,  and  assumes  their  identity. 


6  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

that  of  Cardinal  Bimbo,  but  not  to  express  a  similarity 
of  disposition  towards  the  great  Dominican.  Until 
recently,  only  Mr.  J.  S.  Harford  had  asserted  an  actual 
residence  of  Colet  in  Florence,  and  direct  personal 
relations  between  Savonarola  and  him.1  A  few  years 
ago,  however,  the  same  decision  was  set  forth  in  an 
historical  work  of  unquestionable  importance.2  Indeed, 
it  may  now  be  taken  as  the  final  opinion  arrived  at  by 
reputable  historians  on  a  review  of  all  the  existing 
evidence.  Nevertheless,  the  fact  remains  that,  though 
pursuing  in  England  one  line  of  Savonarola's  work, 
Colet  preserved  a  complete  silence  as  to  the  name  of 
the  Prophet-preacher.3 

The  same  autumn4  which  witnessed  the  safe  return 
of  King  Charles  VIII  to  a  secure  throne,  after  his  futile 
pursuit  of  a  doubtful  one,  found  Colet  in  Paris  enjoying 
the  society  of  men  like  Lefevre,  Gaguin,  Bude,  and 
others,  who  could  enter  into  and  appreciate  his  plans. 
With  his  mind  fully  made  up  as  to  the  course  he  was 
about  to  take  in  his  own  country,  he  soon  returned  to 
his  parents  in  London.  But  not  to  remain  long  there. 
He  felt  too  powerfully  the  attracting  force  of  a  great 
spiritual  work,  which  drew  him  away,  after  a  few  months 

1  Life  of  Michael  Angelo  Buonarroti,  London,  1857,  I,  55. 

2  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generate,  Paris,  1894,  IV,  555.  They 
are,  however,  probably  mistaken  in  asserting  an  acquaintance  of  Colet 
with  the  court  of  the  Medici,  for  the  latter  were  exiles  from  Florence  at 
the  only  time  he  could  have  visited  the  city  on  the  Arno. 

3  It  may  be  thought  strange  that  Erasmus,  Colet's  friend,  should  have 
twice  mentioned  the  great  Dominican,  once  in  1 5 1 9  (Eras.  Op.  Ill,  517D), 
and  again  in  1520  (ibid.,  605A),  and  on  each  occasion  classed  Savonarola's 
career  in  the  same  category  with  the  detestable  Dominican  imposture  at 
Berne  in  1509,  of  which  Mr.  Belfort  Bax,  German  Society  at  the  Close  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  London,  1894,  App.  B.,  has  given  a  full  account  from 
the  Chronica  of  Sebastian  Franck.  But  perhaps  Erasmus  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  expressing  his  disapproval  of  Savonarola's  rebellious  attitude 
towards  the  authorities  of  the  Church.  Such  disapproval  Colet  is  ex- 
tremely likely  to  have  shared  with  Erasmus. 

4  Eras.  Op.  Ill,  9. — The  Epistle  of  Erasmus,  to  which  Colet  here  re- 
ferred, is  that  which  Gaguin  appended  to  his  Prankish  History  in  Sep- 
tember, 1495.    This  fixes  the  dale  of  Colet's  residence  at  Paris. 


CONFLICT  WITH  THE  FRIARS  7 

of  home-life,  to  his  self-chosen  task  in  the  University 
of  Oxford.1 

It  was  at  either  the  end  of  1496  or  the  beginning  of 
1497  that  Colet  began  to  lecture  upon  the  Bible  at 
Oxford.  We  do  not  know  at  what  College  he  stayed, 
or  whether  he  resided,  instead,  in  a  Hall  or  Hostel.  He 
probably  did  the  latter,  as  it  would  have  afforded  him 
a  greater  degree  of  freedom.  His  own  description  of  his 
place  of  abode  is  the  simple  one  with  which  he  concludes 
his  first  epistle  to  Erasmus  :  "  Ex  cubiculo  Oxoniae  " 
("  from  my  chamber  at  Oxford  ").2 

Some  knowledge  of  the  position  of  the  University  of 
that  time  in  regard  to  theological  and  biblical  studies 
is  requisite  to  the  understanding  of  the  full  significance 
of  that  work  upon  which  Colet  was  now  entering.  This 
will  involve  a  brief  narrative  of  a  protracted  and  com- 
plicated struggle  within  the  University  itself  which 
cannot  be  without  some  amount  of  interest  for  the 
modern  student  of  the  Bible  and  its  history. 

The  conflict  began  as  far  back  as  the  commencement 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  At  Oxford,  as  at  Paris,  the 
mendicant  orders  had  already  established  themselves. 
In  both,  they  soon  became  obnoxious  on  several 
grounds.  The  Universities  of  Europe  "  were  but  the 
organs  of  the  secular  clergy  at  large."3  The  secular 
members,  at  first  disposed  to  regard  the  new  element 
with  kindly  goodwill,  soon  observed  that  there  was  a 
danger  threatening  the  very  life  of  the  University  in 
the  possibility  that  the  religious  orders  might  obtain 
complete  control  of  it.  To  avert  this,  the  seculars 
passed  a  series  of  statutes  aimed  frankly  at  the  regulars. 
The  first  hostile  action  against  the  friars  in  Oxford 
almost  synchronized  with  a  similar  action  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris.    This  was  the  enactment  of  a  statute 

1  Ibid.,  456B  :  "  Jam  reversus  ex  Italia,  relictis  parentum  aedibus, 
Oxoniae  maluit  agere." 

2  Ibid. ,  9c  ;  Knight,  Colet,  p.  12  ;  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  27. 

3  Rashdall,  II,  384. 


8  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

in  1252  requiring  the  obedience  of  the  regular  graduates 
to  the  University  Statutes.1  Disputes  between  the 
friars  and  the  University  continued  at  Oxford  until  the 
complete  surrender  of  the  former  in  a.d.  1320. 

In  one  particular,  at  any  rate,  the  victory  thus  ob- 
tained by  the  University,  or  rather  the  Faculty  of  Arts 
therein,2  was  scarcely  just  or  beneficial.  A  theologian, 
in  the  ordinary  course,  could  not  proceed  to  Inception 
in  Theology,  i.e.,  become  a  D.D.,  until  he,  as  a  first 
step,  had  graduated  M.A.  To  this  regulation  the 
mendicants  lodged  the  objection  that  their  principles 
did  not  permit  them  to  graduate  in  secular  studies. 
The  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  represented  in  fact 
philosophical  studies  which  the  friars  considered  of 
little  value  for  the  practical  work  of  preaching,  but 
they  imparted,  or  professed  to  do  so,  philosophical 
instruction  in  schools  of  their  own.  The  second  step 
towards  the  D.D.  degree  was  to  take  the  B.D.  degree. 
That  involved  the  delivery  of  lectures  upon  the 
Sentences,  the  famous  text-book  of  mediaeval  theology. 
The  regulars  objected  to  this  also,  because  it  made 
philosophical  education  necessary,  and,  prior  to  1311, 
they  had  been  in  possession  of  the  privilege  of  requiring 
only  the  sanction  of  their  superiors  before  lecturing 
upon  the  Bible.  In  short,  the  secular  Masters  and 
Doctors  of  Oxford  had  compelled,  or  sought  to  compel, 
the  regulars  to  devote  to  the  study  of  scholastic 
philosophy  years  which  the  friars  wished  to  give  to 
biblical  study.  These  claimed  that  pure  theology 
required  no  philosophical  training.  A  friar,  said  they, 
might  be  well  able  to  lecture  upon  the  Bible,  and  yet 
be  quite  unsuited  for  the  study  of  philosophy.  It 
would  appear,  therefore,  that  the  friars  were  anxious 
to  place  the  exegetical  study  of  the  Bible  in  the  place 

1  Ibid.,  II,  378,  for  the  Oxonian  Statute  ;  ibid.,  I,  373,  for  the  Parisian. 

1  Collectanea,  2nd  Series,  edited  by  Prof.  Montagu  Burrows,  M.A., 
Oxford,  1890,  Introd.,  pp.  195  el  seq.  The  document  which  sets  forth 
the  submission  of  the  friars  is  given  on  pp.  272-3. 


VICTORY  OF  THE  SECULARS  9 

of  prominence,  in  fact,  to  put  the  Bible  before  the 
Sentences.1 

The  sympathies  of  the  modern  biblical  student  go 
with  the  friars  at  this  point  in  the  dispute,  and  all  the 
more  readily  when  it  is  known  that  the  mind  of  the 
secular  academic,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  course  of 
study,  was  bound  to  take  a  philosophical  turn  which 
would  exercise  an  important  influence  over  his  studies 
in  theology,  when  he  approached  that  higher  Faculty. 
It  will  thus  be  obvious  that  the  friars  were  the  champions 
of  biblical  studies  at  Oxford  University,  whilst  the 
secular  Masters,  who  had  gained  a  triumph,  used  their 
success  to  rivet  firmly  on  the  University  that  very 
scholastic  philosophy  which,  in  its  later  developments, 
inspired  Erasmus  and  his  reforming  friends  with  con- 
tempt and  disgust. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  only  fair  to  point  out  that  the 
claim  of  the  mendicants  to  be  exempted  from  the  Arts 
course  constituted  a  threefold  danger  to  the  University. 
Firstly,  the  absence  of  any  undertaking  to  be  amenable 
to  the  University  authorities  rendered  the  friars  inde- 
pendent of  the  Statutes.  To  rectify  this,  the  Statute  of 
1252  sought  to  compel  them  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  University.  Secondly,  the  multiplication  of  friar 
Doctors  threatened  to  draw  the  major  part  of  influence 
within  the  University  into  the  hands  of  the  mendicant 
orders.  And  thirdly,  the  licences  granted  to  the  friars 
by  their  Superiors  to  lecture  on  the  Bible  might  con- 
ceivably be  open  to  abuse.2 

Although  the  regulars  had  submitted  to  the  Univer- 
sity, the  conflict  was  not  quite  ended.  At  intervals  it 
burst  out  again  and  again,  but  never  assumed  any 
degree  of  consequence.  Besides,  as  the  century  ad- 
vanced other  issues  arose  within  the  University  which 
gradually  overshadowed  and  finally  quenched  the  last 
sparks  of  the  quarrel  with  the  friars. 

1  Rashdall,  II,  380.  »  Cp.  Rashdall,  II,  378-384  with  Trevelyan 
(G.  M.),  England  in  the  Age  of  Wycliffe,  London,  1899,  p.  297. 


io  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

The  University,  almost  immediately  after  it  had 
obtained  its  success  over  the  mendicants,  gained  another 
victory,  one  much  more  remarkable  in  its  immediate 
effects.  This  had  reference  to  the  emancipation  of  the 
University  of  Oxford  from  episcopal  control. 

In  two  chief  respects,  the  Bishops  of  Lincoln  had,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  when  the 
University  commenced  its  organized  existence,  full 
power  over  it.  One  related  to  the  Chancellor's  juris- 
diction, the  other  to  his  appointment.1  From  1214  the 
Chancellor  had  been  merely  the  Bishop's  official.  In  all 
disputes,  however,  between  the  University  and  the 
Bishop,  he  invariably  sided  with  the  former,  of  which 
corporate  body  he  was  a  member.  At  first,  the  Bishop 
had  possessed  the  power  of  overruling  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Chancellor,  but,  as  time  went  on,  the  royal 
authority  had  conferred  upon  the  Chancellor's  Court  a 
certain  amount  of  independence,  and  besides  the  royal 
grants  of  privileges,  the  favour  of  the  Metropolitan  (of 
Canterbury)  had,  on  several  occasions,  supported  the 
rebellion  of  the  University  against  the  authority  of  the 
Bishop.  By  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century,  the 
growth  of  the  Chancellor's  independent  jurisdiction  had 
contributed  very  largely  to  render  the  University  itself 
independent.2 

The  other  circumstance,  the  appointment  of  the 
Chancellor,  during  the  same  time,  tended  in  the  same 
direction. 

The  usual  course  followed,  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
for  the  appointment  of  a  Chancellor  was,  that  the 
University  elected  or  nominated  a  Doctor  or  Master 
of  one  of  the  superior  Faculties  to  be  Chancellor,3  and 
the  Chancellor-elect  was  required  to  present  himself 
before  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  for  confirmation  of  his 

1  Rashdall,  II,  418  and  358-9.       2  Ibid.,  II,  421-424. 

3  Ibid.,  II,  355.  In  1300,  Bp.  Dalderby  objected  to  the  phrase 
"elected,"  and  maintained  that  the  University  only  "  nominated  "  a 
person  to  the  Chancellorship — see  ibid.,  II,  426. 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY     n 

appointment.  Towards  the  end  of  this  century,  it  came 
to  be  the  custom  for  the  newly-elected  Chancellor  to  sue 
by  proxy  for  confirmation.  In  the  middle  of  the  follow- 
ing century  (the  14th),  the  University  obtained  a  papal 
Bull  recognizing  the  right  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury to  confirm  in  case  of  the  refusal  of  the  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  to  do  so.  But  long  before  this,  the  nominal 
power  of  confirmation  had  become  a  final  relic  of 
episcopal  control  over  the  University,  for,  about  the 
same  time  that  the  University  won  its  triumph  over 
the  friars,  it  had  asserted  its  independence  of  the 
Bishop  by  deposing  the  Chancellor.1  As  the  institution 
was  now  destitute  of  all  reality  and  value,  the  Bishop 
lost  nothing  when  the  Bull  of  Pope  Urban  V,  in  1368, 
finally  abolished  the  necessity  of  confirmation. 

The  University  was  free.  With  an  elective  head, 
chosen  from  and  by  themselves,  one  who  had  an  inde- 
pendent jurisdiction  over  the  members  of  the  Univer- 
sity, and  to  whom  alone  the  members  of  the  University 
felt  themselves  responsible,  the  academics  of  Oxford 
found  themselves  in  a  state  of  liberty  unparalleled  in 
that  age.  Whatever  defects  the  study  of  scholastic 
philosophy,  which  they  were  now  enforcing,  entailed,  it 
at  least  served  the  purpose  of  teaching  men  to  think. 
The  liberty  enjoyed  by  the  seculars  of  Oxford  bestowed 
upon  them  the  right  to  think  freely.  Accordingly,  in 
the  second  half  of  the  fourteenth  century,  Oxford 
became  the  home  of  that  intellectual  and  religious 
movement  known  as  Wyclifiism.. 

In  1366,  the  request  of  the  English  Parliament  that 
John  Wycliffe  should  reply  to  the  demands  of  the  papal 
messenger  for  the  payment  by  the  nation  of  that  tribute 
which  the  See  of  Rome  claimed  in  virtue  of  King  John's 
submission  to  Pope  Innocent  in  1213,2  first  brought 

1  To  be  accurate,  in  1322. 

*  Green  (J.  R.),  History  of  the  English  People,  London,  1877-1880, 
I,  230-237.  Hook  (Dean  W.  F.),  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury, 
vol.  IV  (Middle  Age  Period),  London,  1865,  pp.  194,  et  seq.,  has  pointed 


12  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

this  remarkable  person  into  prominence.  Of  the 
champion  thus  selected  by  Parliament  the  only  certain 
facts  relative  to  his  life  before  1366  are,  that  he  was,  in 
some  sense,  a  royal  chaplain;1  that,  in  1361,  he  had 
accepted  the  College  living  of  Fillingham,  in  the  diocese 
of  Lincoln  ;  and  that  he  had,  for  a  few  years  before 
1361,  been  Master  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford.2  There  is 
no  certainty  in  the  alleged  identification  of  the  John 
Wycliffe  who  was  appointed  Warden  of  Canterbury 
Hall,  in  1365,  by  Simon  Islip,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, with  the  reformer.3 

The  peculiar  opinions  of  Wycliffe,  on  the  right  of  the 
State  to  take  away  ecclesiastical  possessions,  assumed 
importance  for  the  first  time  only  when  he  gave  answer 
to  the  papal  tax-gatherer.  This  person  happened  to 
be  a  monk — a  fact  that  caused  the  parliamentary 
champion  to  add  pungency  to  his  reply.  As  a  secular, 
Wycliffe  was  opposed  to  the  regulars,  the  orders  who 
held  by  no  means  the  smallest  share  of  the  wealth  of 
the  Church.  It  was  a  time,  indeed,  when  the  Church 
was  immensely  rich,  and,  consequently,  was  concerned 
far  more  with  the  affairs  of  the  world  of  profit  and 
politics  than  with  the  spiritual  life  of  the  people. 
Whatever  judgment  may  be  passed  upon  the  views  of 
Wycliffe,  there  seems  no  doubt  that,  in  effect,  her  riches 
constituted  an  evil  destructive  alike  of  the  power  of  the 
State  and  of  the  influence  of  religion.  On  another 
occasion,  he  laid  stress  on  the  enormous  amount  of 
wealth  that  remained  quite  unproductive  in  the  hands 

out  that,  at  this  time,  Wycliffe  was  but  the  spokesman  of  the  prelates 
and  barons  of  the  kingdom  in  their  opposition  to  papal  usurpations,  and 
that  Wycliffe  had  in  all  his  opinions,  save  the  doctrinal,  the  sympathy 
and  agreement  of  Primate  Langham. 

1  Vaughan  (Robert),  John  de  Wycliffe,  London,  1831,  I,  298.  "  Pecu- 
liaris  regis  clericus  talis  qualis  " — Sergeant  (Lewis),  John  Jf'ychf,  London, 
1893,  p.  104  ;   Hook,  op.  cit.,  p.  197. 

2  Rashdall,  II,  475  ;  Sergeant,  p.  95  ;  Vaughan,  I,  272. 

8  Rashdall,  II,  498;  Vaughan,  I,  317-8  and  Appendices;  Sergeant, 
p.  147  ;   Hook,  IV,  197,  note. 


EVIL  STATE  OF  THE  CHURCH  13 

of  abbots.1  But  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Wycliffe,  by 
his  treatment  of  them,  marked  a  distinction  between 
monks  and  friars.  The  former,  who  consisted  of  the 
members  of  the  ancient  monastic  orders,  he  condemned 
for  their  excessive  opulence,  yet  he  never  censured  the 
morality  of  their  lives.  He  dealt  otherwise  with  the 
friars,  that  is  to  say,  the  members  of  the  four  itinerant 
and  mendicant  orders  founded  towards  the  end  of  the 
middle  ages,  for  he  severely  criticised  their  lives  and 
methods.  However,  his  acerbity  has  to  be  accounted 
partly  as  a  recrudescence  of  academic  opposition  to  the 
religious  orders,  and  partly  as  a  reflection  of  the, 
perhaps  justifiable,  hatred  borne  against  the  friars  by 
the  secular  clergy  and  many  of  the  people. 

Rich  as  she  was,  the  Church  had  little  influence  over 
the  people.  The  bishops  were  princes,  more  familiar 
with  politics  and  offices  of  State  than  with  their  own 
diocesan  administration.  The  higher  dignitaries  were, 
in  many  cases,  foreigners  and  absentees.  The  wealthier 
parishes  were  in  the  possession  of  monasteries  or  kings' 
favourites.  As  a  consequence,  the  ordinary  routine  of 
parish  work  was  left  to  a  miserably  educated,  miserably 
paid,  and  miserably  living  multitude  of  vicars  and 
curates.  Therefore  the  riches  of  the  Church  were  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  did  little  to  deserve  their 
possession,  and  seemed  best  able  to  afford  to  have  them 
reduced,  namely,  the  superior  clergy  and  heads  of 
monasteries. 

As  a  remedy  for  most  of  these  evils,  Wycliffe  recom- 
mended the  disendowment  of  the  Church,  and  the 
adoption  by  the  ministers  of  religion  of  the  ideal  of 
apostolic  poverty.2 

The  next  important  event  in  his  life  took  place  in 

1  Consult  Trevelyan's  chapters  on  the  "  Social  Position  "  and  "  Spiri- 
tual Influence  of  the  Church  in  England,"  Age  of  Wycliffe,  pp.  104-182. 

2  Trevelyan,  p.  151.  Curiously,  at  this  juncture  in  his  life,  on  account 
of  his  views  on  disendowment  and  apostolic  poverty,  Wycliffe  found 
himself  supported  by  the  mendicant  orders. 


i4  BIBLE  TEACHING   AT  OXFORD 

1377.  Since  1366,  his  teaching  had  been  found  to  be  in 
direct  antagonism  to  the  received  doctrines  of  the 
Church.  The  freedom  of  Oxford  had  encouraged  and 
emboldened  the  great  scholastic  philosopher,  for  such 
Wycliffe  indeed  was,1  to  put  no  limit  to  the  range  of 
his  speculations.  At  the  stormy  trial  of  Wycliffe,  in 
the  beginning  of  1377,  in  St.  Paul's,  the  quarrel  of  the 
presiding  judge,  Courtney,  Bishop  of  London,  with 
John  of  Gaunt  and  Lord  Percy,  prevented  any  formal 
statement  of  charges  against  Wycliffe.  The  trial,  in 
fact,  had  degenerated  into  a  riot.2 

But  towards  the  end  of  the  same  year,  five  Bulls 
came  from  Rome,  one  of  which  was  addressed  to  the 
University  of  Oxford  enjoining  the  cessation  of  the 
condemned  teaching.  Of  the  nineteen  propositions  set 
forth  in  the  Bulls  as  heretical,  ten  refer  to  the  temporal 
power  or  possessions  of  the  Church,  the  other  nine  to  the 
denial  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  of  the  validity  of 
his  excommunications  and  censures,  and  of  his  claims 
to  be  superior  to  impeachment.3 

The  University,  however,  decided  that,  in  substance, 
Wycliffe 's  statements  were  true  ;  and,  being  averse  to 
the  open  rejection  of  the  papal  pronouncement,  took 
the  more  prudent  course  of  receiving  the  Bull  and  doing 
nothing  in  the  matter.4 

Archbishop  Sudbury  proceeded  to  remedy  the  defec- 
tive action  of  the  University  authorities  by  citing 
Wycliffe  before  him  at  Lambeth  in  the  early  days  of  1378. 
Being  shielded  by  the  protection  of  the  Queen-Mother 
and  the  citizens  of  London,  Wycliffe  escaped  from  the 
hands  of  his  judges  with  nothing  worse  than  the  imposi- 

1  Rashdall,  II,  541. 

2  Sergeant,  pp.  160-168;  this  is  a  most  interesting  portion  of  Mr. 
Sergeant's  book,  as  it  throws  light  upon  the  state  and  temper  of  London 
at  the  time. 

3  Vaughan,  I,  368-396  (Gregory's  Bull  is  in  App.  XI) ;    Sergeant,  pp. 

I77-I79- 

4  Lechler  (Prof.),  fVycliffe,  Eng.  trans,  by  Prof.  Lorimer,  new  edition, 

R.T.S.,  s.a.,  p.  171. 


WYCLIFFE  AND  THE  PEASANTS'  REVOLT  15 

tion  of  silence.  The  death  of  Pope  Gregory  soon  after 
delayed  all  further  measures  against  him. 

By  1382,  Wycliffe's  opinions  had  advanced  to  more 
profound  questions  of  doctrine.  These  opinions  had 
formed  the  subject  of  an  inquiry  at  Oxford,  in  the 
preceding  year,  before  the  Chancellor  of  the  University, 
William  de  Berton  or  Barton.  Chancellor  Barton's 
court  had  condemned  them,  and  decided  that  they  were 
not  to  be  maintained  or  taught  in  Oxford,  under  severe 
penalties.1  But  Wy cliff e  had  appealed  to  the  King's 
Council,  and  though  careful  to  abstain  from  public 
discussions  on  the  subject,  had  asserted  his  arguments 
against  Transubstantiation  by  means  of  writings.  He 
had  had  a  short  period  of  quiet,  whilst  the  authorities 
of  the  kingdom,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  were  sufficiently 
occupied  in  the  suppression  of  the  Peasants'  Revolt. 
His  enemies,  as  soon  as  they  had  time  to  pay  attention 
to  him,  were  not  slow  in  imputing  the  responsibility 
for  that  insurrection  to  him.  Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  the  Rising  of  1381  was  no  product  of  new  and 
startling  doctrines,  or  of  hastily  conducted  agitation.2 
The  real  causes  of  it  were  to  be  found  in  the  conditions 
of  life  of  the  serfs  and  villeins,  the  loosening  hold  of  the 
feudal  lords  over  the  wills  and  bodies  of  the  labouring 
classes,  and  the  economic  circumstances  of  the  nation 
generally.3 

At  length,  in  1382,  the  revolt  of  the  peasantry  having 
been  quelled,  the  question  of  Wycliffe's  sacramental 
opinions  formed  the  subject  of  discussion  by  a  Synod 
held  in  London  at  the  Blackfriars  Priory.     Courtney 

1  Sergeant,  pp.  243-7  ;   Vaughan,  II,  61-62  and  App.  III. 

2  Lechler,  pp.  374  et  seq.  ;  Sergeant,  pp.  259-260  and  286;  cp.  also 
Sir  John  Froissart,  Chronicles  of  England,  France,  Spain,  and  the 
adjoining  countries,  translated  by  Thomas  Johnes,  2nd  edit.,  London, 
1806,  vol.  V,  chap.  LVTI  ;  Trevelyan,  p.  197. 

3  Green,  I,  472-4.  Cp.  Froude,  Short  Studies  on  Great  Subjects,  3rd 
series,  London,  1877,  "  Annals  of  an  English  Abbey."  The  whole  subject 
of  the  Rising  and  Wycliffe's  relations  to  it  is  discussed  by  Trevelyan  in 
an  admirable  chapter,  Chap.  VI. 


16  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

presided.  Ten  bishops  in  all  were  present.  Fifteen 
friar  Doctors,  a  Benedictine  Doctor,  besides  Law 
Doctors  and  Bachelors,  and  several  Theological 
Bachelors,  took  part  in  the  examination.  It  will  be 
seen  that,  in  this  Synod,  the  members  of  which  did  not 
represent  the  full  number  of  those  summoned  by 
Archbishop  Courtney,  the  mendicant  orders,  Wycliffe's 
bitterest  foes,  constituted  the  majority.  Ten  Wycliffite 
opinions  were  condemned  as  heresies,  fourteen  as 
erroneous  conclusions.  Among  the  heresies  were 
included  Wycliffe's  sacramental  views,  his  ideas  relative 
to  temporal  possessions  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy,  his 
assertion  that  unworthiness  affects  the  ministerial  acts 
of  an  ecclesiastic,  and  his  statement  that  an  end  ought 
to  be  put  to  the  Papacy  and  that  the  regular  orders 
fulfilled  no  useful  purpose.1  Courtney  moreover 
appointed  Stokes,  a  Carmelite  friar,  to  see  that  heresy 
was  banished  from  the  Oxford  schools. 

In  spite  of  the  Archbishop's  letter  of  command  to  the 
Chancellor,  Robert  Rygge,2  the  latter  continued  to  show 
favour  towards  acknowledged  supporters  of  Wycliffe's 
opinions,  and  appointed  Dr.  Hereford,  a  noted 
Wycliffite,  to  preach  in  St.  Frideswyde's  on  the  Festival 
of  Corpus  Christi.  Hereford  defended  his  leader's 
views  on  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  the  orthodox  doctrine 
of  the  Church.  The  sermon  over,  Chancellor  Rygge 
waited  for  the  preacher  outside  the  church,  and  the 
two  walked  away  together  in  the  midst  of  the  most 
important  members  of  the  University,  chatting  pleas- 
antly, to  the  delight  of  the  many  Wycliffites  present. 

By  his  actions,  Rygge  was  but  expressing  the  will  of 
the  University.  Such  was  his  defence  when,  later  on, 
he  was  compelled  to  apologize  to  Archbishop  Courtney. 
Very  possibly,  many  who  supported  Wycliffe's  adherents 
at  Oxford,  at  this  juncture,  did  so  less  from  actual 
sympathy  with  the  reformer's  religious  opinions  than 

1  Vaughan,  II,  chap.  VIII,  gives  a  full  account  of  Wycliffe's  teachings. 

2  Ibid.,  II,App.  IV. 


SUBJECTION  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY        17 

from  a  desire  to  assert  the  University's  independence 
of  episcopal  control.  Among  these  we  may  perhaps 
count  Chancellor  Rygge  himself.1 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that,  in  the  University  of 
Paris,  at  no  time  would  the  ideas  of  Wycliffe  ever  have 
found  toleration,  much  less  acceptance.2  That  is  to  be 
explained  as  arising  from  the  difference  between  the 
circumstances  and  spirit  of  the  two  Universities.  But 
more  especially  because  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
had  direct  control  over  the  great  French  University, 
whereas  Oxford  had,  for  the  time  being,  won  a  large 
measure  of  liberty. 

Church  and  King  now  combined  to  stamp  the  heresy 
out  of  Oxford,  and  to  curtail  the  independence  of  the 
proud  University.  Courtney,  in  November,  1382,  with 
the  bishops  of  his  province,  entered  Oxford.  At  the 
Convocation  thereupon  held,  Chancellor  Rygge  was 
brought  to  a  more  real  submission,  and.  the  principal 
adherents  of  Wycliffe  were  forced  to  a  recantation  which, 
in  the  case  of  some,  was  only  a  pretence. 

So  far  the  Primate  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
triumph  over  the  University,  but  Wycliffism  was  not 
yet  banished  from  the  Schools  and  Halls  of  Oxford.  It 
was  too  intimately  connected  with  the  opposition  of  the 
seculars  to  the  regulars,  with  the  desire  of  the  more 
earnest  students  of  scholastic  philosophy  to  have 
liberty  of  speculation,  to  render  it  possible  that  it  should 
be  stamped  out  so  long  as  there  remained  a  spark  of 
freedom  among  the  Doctors  and  Masters.  Yet  Courtney 
was  confident  that  he  had  made  an  end  of  it  by  means 
of  the  repressive  measures  he  had  adopted  in  1382,  and 
by  the  watchfulness  of  his  ready  assistants,  the  mendi- 
cants, in  the  subsequent  years.  So  secure  did  he  feel 
against  any  recrudescence  of  danger  from  this  quarter 
that  he  willingly  lent  his  aid  (in  1395)  to  procure  the 
Bull  of  Boniface  IX,  exempting  the  University  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  all  archbishops,  bishops,  and  ordinaries, 

1  Ibid.,  II,  83.       2  Rashdall,  II,  428. 


18  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

and  placing  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Chancellor  of 
Oxford  all  privileged  persons,  such  as  friars,  monks, 
and  certain  others.1  In  the  following  year,  however, 
Courtney's  successor,  Arundel,  refused  to  regard  die 
Bull  as  authentic,  and  proceeded  to  deal  with  some 
complaints  that  had  been  made  to  him  as  to  the  con- 
tinued teaching  of  Wycliffite  doctrine  in  the  University. 
His  efforts  were  by  no  means  successful  on  this  occasion. 

At  length,  the  linal  struggle  between  the  University 
and  the  Archbishop  began  in  1408.  The  constitutions 
issued  in  this  year  against  Wycliffite  teaching  were 
treated  with  neglect.  Again,  in  1409,  the  University 
declined  to  act  against  the  heretics.  In  1410,  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Great  Congregation  and  the  Regents  to  the 
Archbishop's  wishes  was  more  markedly  hostile. 
Finally,  in  1411,  on  the  attempt  of  Arundel  to  enter 
Oxford  for  the  purpose  of  holding  a  Visitation  of  the 
University  in  St.  Mary's,  the  hostility  of  the  University 
went  so  far  as  to  present  an  armed  resistance  to  this 
breach  of  the  papal  privilege.  The  Archbishop,  with 
his  retinue,  retreated  before  the  bows  and  arrows  of  the 
students,  but  he  forthwith  appealed  to  the  King. 
Although  the  King  demanded  the  resignation  of  the 
Chancellor  and  Proctors,  the  University  regarded  these 
forced  resignations  as  subversive  of  their  privileges, 
and  thereupon  decreed  a  cessation  and  re-elected  the 
deprived  officers.  The  courage  of  the  University,  in 
defending  itself  against  King  and  Archbishop  combined, 
only  failed  when  Boniface's  privilege  was  taken  away 
by  John  XXIII  towards  the  close  of  this  eventful  year. 

The  freedom  of  Oxford  was  at  an  end.  Deserted  by 
King,  Pope,  and  even  Parliament,  the  subjection  of  the 
University  to  the  Archbishop  was  complete. 

The  campaign,  which  the  University  had  prosecuted 
with  so  much  vigour  and  so  little  success,  in  defence  of 
Wycliffism,  had  been,  in  truth,  much  more  a  struggle 
to  attain  freedom  of  speech  and  thought  in  the  pulpits 

1  Ibid.,  11,430. 


DECADENCE  OF  SCHOLASTICISM  19 

and  schools  of  Oxford.  The  times  were  not  ripe  for  such 
freedom.  Intellectual  progress  in  England,  and  through- 
out Europe  generally,  was  not  yet  sufficiently  advanced 
for  a  claim  of  this  kind  to  meet  with  sympathy  or 
toleration.  With  the  downfall  of  Wyclirrism  at  Oxford, 
therefore,  not  only  the  religious  zeal  of  the  Lollard,  but 
the  intellectual  activity  of  the  Oxonian  suffered  a  reverse 
which  neither  recovered  from  until  both  were  merged  into 
the  great  revolt  of  the  succeeding  century  which  strewed 
the  quadrangle  of  New  College  with  the  torn  leaves  of 
Dunce — Duns  Scotus.1  Indeed,  so  entirely  submissive 
did  Oxford  become  during  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth 
century,  that,  in  1479,  Pope  Sixtus  was  able,  without 
any  misgivings,  to  restore  to  the  University  the  once 
valuable  privilege  of  exemption  from  episcopal  control. 
After  a.d.  1411,  scholastic  philosophy  was  carefully 
restricted  to  narrow  channels  of  speculation.  The 
subjects  of  disputation  degenerated  into  low,  and  still 
lower,  depths  of  triviality.  Colet,  when  a  student  at 
Oxford,  must  have  been  at  times  as  heartily  weary  of 
the  inane  discussions  as  Erasmus  afterwards  professed 
to  be,  when  he  ridiculed  them  in  his  Praise  of  Folly. 
The  scholars  of  the  Renaissance  period  looked  back 
with  regret  to  the  scholasticism  of  the  thirteenth  and 
fourteenth  centuries,  for  that  with  which  they  were 
acquainted  was  only  a  decayed  and  lifeless  representa- 
tion of  mediaeval  thought.  Wycliffe,  if  the  first  of  the 
reformers,  must  certainly  be  reckoned  the  last  of  the 
schoolmen,  and  the  proscription  of  his  works  and 
doctrines  in  Oxford  carried  in  it  the  death-warrant  of 
all  real  power  and  originality  in  scholastic  philosophy. 
Yet  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt  if  Wyclirrism  was  ever 
banished  from  Oxford.  True,  it  could  never  display 
itself  openly.  But  the  movement  that  urged  Bohemia 
to  demand  religious  freedom,  and  to  revolt,  when  that 
freedom  was  denied,  can  hardly  have  been  without 

1  Ibid.,  II,  535.  Dean  Hook,  op.  cit.,  IV,  493-6,  gives  a  full  account  of 
the  1408-1411  struggle. 


20  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT   OXFORD 

influence  upon  the  minds  of  those  who  resorted  to  its 
place  of  origin.  As  late  as  1491,  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln 
complained  of  being  harassed  at  Oxford  by  numerous 
heretics,  who,  from  the  Bishop's  remarks,  appear  to 
have  been  persons  of  some  education  and  intelligence.1 
An  under-current,  therefore,  of  YVycliffite  opinions 
actually  existed  in  the  University  in  Colet's  time,  and 
he  may,  likely  enough,  have  become  well  acquainted 
with  them  there.  Outside  the  University,  Wyclimsm 
undoubtedly  had  plenty  of  adherents,  but  these  were 
rarely  educated  persons,  and  the  views  they  held  had 
little  influence  upon  the  state  of  the  national  mind. 

Void  of  intellectual  life  as  Oxford  became  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  it  had  in  it  the  germs  of  reviving 
activities.  The  establishment  of  libraries,  the  intro- 
duction of  the  art  of  printing,  the  diffusion  of  classical 
literature,  and  the  production  of  improved  Latin 
Grammars,2  gave  promise  of  a  brighter  future  for  the 
University ;  fraught  with  like  tendencies  were  the 
increasing  interest  in  educational  matters  outside  the 
Universities,  and  the  efforts  made  for  the  promotion  of 
Grammar  Schools  throughout  the  country.  The 
difficulty  felt  in  Byngham's  time  (1439),  and  for  long 
after,  was  not  that  parents  were  indifferent  to  the 
education  of  their  children,  but  that  suitable  masters 
for  the  schools  were  not  to  be  found.3  That  difficulty 
was  still  a  real  one  when  Erasmus,  in  1511,  sought 
among  the  graduates  of  Cambridge  for  an  under-master 
for  Colet's  school  at  St.  Paul's.4 

More  serious  than  the  state  of  the  literary  side  of  the 
education  of  the  Oxford  student  was  that  of  the  reli- 
gious or  theological  side.  Of  the  ordinary  parish  clergy, 
the  vicars  and  curates  of  the  country  parishes,  the 

1  Ibid.,  II,  542-3.  For  the  influence  of  Wycliffe  at  Cambridge  see 
Dyer  (G).,  Hist,  of  the  University  and  Colleges  of  Cambridge,  London, 
1814,  I,  163-4. 

2  Cp.  Rashdall,  II,  514-5,  464,  with  Lupton,  Colet,pp.  16-19. 

3  Rashdall,  II,  571  ;  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  16. 
*  Eras.  Op.  Ill,  132F. 


RELIGIOUS  TEACHING  21 

chantry-priests  and  chaplains,  in  short  the  inferior 
clergy  as  a  whole,  many  may  have  been  at  one  time  or 
another  at  a  University,  but  very  few  were  the  proud 
possessors  of  an  Arts  degree.  Only  the  very  highest 
class  of  the  clergy  were  able  to  spend  the  long  period  of 
study  (covering  about  sixteen  years)  required  to  take 
the  theological  degree.  To  be  in  possession  of  only  an 
Arts  degree  meant  that  the  student  had  no  knowledge 
of  theology  beyond  what  he  may  have  heard  at  a 
sermon.1  Even  the  advanced  theological  student  was 
only  expected  to  hear  certain  lectures  on  the  Bible 
delivered,  in  Paris  University  and  very  probably  like- 
wise in  Oxford,  by  regulars.  It  is  true  that  the  candi- 
date for  the  D.D.  degree  was  required  to  lecture  on  one 
book  of  the  Bible,  but  the  title  applied  to  this  lecture, 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  would  convey  the  impression 
that  it  had  degenerated  into  a  kind  of  imperfect 
"  introduction,"  hardly  a  token  of  serious  study.2 

A  consideration  of  these  facts  will  serve  to  explain 
why  Luther  never  saw  a  Bible  until  he  was  twenty 
years  of  age,  when  he  at  last  obtained  access  to  one  in 
the  convent  at  Erfurt.  A  Roman  Catholic  lady- writer 
speaks  somewhat  injudiciously  of  his  state  of  ignorance 
when  she  puts  the  blame  of  it  upon  Luther  himself : 
"  If,  therefore,  in  1503,  Luther  had  never  seen  a  Bible, 
it  must  have  been  because  he  was  so  much  engrossed 
in  other  things  that  he  had  never  given  himself  the 
trouble  of  looking  for  one."3  The  truth  of  the  matter 
is,  that  a  man  is  not  likely  to  look  for  that  which  has 
never  been  brought  to  his  notice  ;  and,  in  Luther's 
time,  "  a  student  in  Arts  would  be  as  little  likely  to 
read  the  Bible  as  he  would  be  to  dip  into  Justinian  or 

1  Rashdall,  II,  701. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  453.  The  expressions  used  are  "  Introitus  Biblie  "  and 
"  lectura  libri  Sententiarum."  Erasmus,  in  his  Enchiridion  (Op.  V, 
8d-f),  declares  his  indignation  against  those  who  would  pose  as  capable 
divines  without  making  a  study  of  the  Scriptures. 

"Stone  (Miss  J.  M.),  Reformation  and  Renaissance,  London,  1904, 
p.  192. 


22  BIBLE  TEACHING  AT  OXFORD 

Hippocrates."1  Bibles  were  fairly  plentiful  in  convents 
and  monasteries,  and  in  the  hands  of  learned  and  wealthy 
persons.  However,  the  secular  cleric — if  poor — had  to 
be  content  with  his  course  in  Arts  ;  in  other  words,  he 
had  to  leave  the  University,  where  he  might  possibly 
have  found  opportunity  of  picking  up  biblical  know- 
ledge, without  any  theological  education  to  fit  him  for 
the  performance  of  his  parochial  duties.  The  rich  ones 
among  the  seculars  most  usually  took  up  the  study  of 
Law  as  a  surer  road  to  preferment  and  honour.*  In 
consequence,  all  serious  study  of  Holy  Writ  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  mendicant  orders.  A  realization  of 
this  fact  serves  not  a  little  to  explain  why  the  friars 
were  the  most  effective  working  clergy  during  the  middle 
ages,8  and  how  they  acquired  power  and  influence  in 
the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries.  It  also  accounts 
satisfactorily  enough  for  the  incident  of  Luther's  coming 
upon  the  Bible  only  when  he  became  an  Augustinian. 
No  one,  indeed,  can  assert,  with  confidence  of  being 
able  to  produce  adequate  proof,  that  the  mediaeval 
Church  deliberately  withheld  the  Bible  from  the  students 
at  the  Universities  ;  but  it  certainly  does  appear  that 
the  orders  were  in  possession  of  nearly  all  the  complete 
editions  of  the  Scriptures.  Too  often  these  were  buried 
in  the  libraries  of  the  monasteries ;  *  and,  consequently, 
remained  unknown,  not  merely  to  the  students,  but  to 
the  greater  part  of  the  theologians  also.  Under  these 
circumstances,  the  faithful  laity  must  have  had  an 
extremely  meagre  knowledge  of  Holy  Writ. 

From  one  point  of  view,  therefore,  all  movements 
towards  reform,  whether  Wycliffite,  Hussite,  or  Catholic, 

1  Rashdall,  II,  701. 

2  Ibid.,  II,  698-9.  It  is  noted  as  a  remarkable  thing,  and  one  which 
redounds  to  his  honour,  that  Cardinal  Wolsey,  when  a  student  at  Oxford, 
studied,  not  Law,  but  Divinity — Taunton,  Wolsey,  p.  13. 

8  Collectanea,  2nd  series,  Oxford,  1890,  pp.  197-201.  See  also  Meray 
(Antony),  Les  Litres  Precheurs  devanciers  de  Luther  et  de  Rabelais, 
Paris,  i860,  Preface  and  Chap.  III. 

4  Gairdner,  Lollardy,  I,  1  ifl. 


SECULARS  AND  REGULARS      23 

ought  to  be  regarded  as  movements  on  the  part  of  the 
secular  clergy  to  obtain  the  restoration  to  their  own 
order  of  the  means  of  rendering  themselves  capable  of 
the  full  and  efficient  discharge  of  their  duties.  As  a 
struggle  between  regulars  and  seculars,  it  was,  in  effect, 
an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  mendicants  to  retain  that 
which  gave  them  influence  among  the  people,  and  an 
effort  made  by  the  parochial  clergy  to  resume  the  full 
dignity  of  their  pastorate.1  Consequently,  it  is  manifest 
that  much  depended  upon  which  of  these  gained  posses- 
sion of  the  Bible  and  taught  it. 

1  Rashdall,  II,  700. 


CHAPTER  II 

colet's  bible  teaching  at  oxford 

Colet's  action  in  undertaking  to  deliver  lectures  on 
the  Bible  was,  in  some  respects  at  least,  outside,  if  not 
actually  contrary  to,  the  Statutes  of  the  University. 
But  perhaps  the  independence  of  the  University  had 
led  to  a  certain  degree  of  laxity  of  discipline  in  this 
matter  as  in  so  many  others.1  According  to  the  regu- 
lations, Colet  should  have  been  in  possession  of  a 
theological  degree.  So  far  was  he  from  complying  with 
these  regulations  that  he  did  not  desire  his  work  to  be 
mistaken  for  exercises  performed  towards  the  attain- 
ment of  a  degree  in  Theology.  Nevertheless,  two  cir- 
cumstances prove,  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
cause  of  the  forbearance  of  the  University  authorities, 
he  cannot  well  have  lectured  in  defiance  of  them.  One 
is  that  no  censure  would  appear  to  have  been  passed 
upon  him.  The  second  is  that  important  audiences 
gathered  to  hear  his  lectures,  consisting  of  doctors  of 
Theology  and  Law,  abbots  and  dignitaries,  besides  the 
ordinary  students.2  The  whole  proceeding  possessed 
an  air  of  novelty  that  must  have  formed  one  of  its 
attractions.  Another  reason  for  the  abstinence  of  the 
University  authorities  from  interference  may  have  been 
that  the  lectures  were  delivered  gratis,  a  circumstance 
which  put  them  outside  the  University  Statutes. 

In  the  course  he  had  taken  Colet  stood  alone.    There 
was  no  other  lecturer  teaching  as  he  did.    He  treated 

1  Rashdall,  II,  449-451.     2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  456c. 
24 


METHODS  OF  EXPOSITION  25 

the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and,  after  it,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  (the  two  of  which  formed  the 
subject  of  his  first  series  of  Lectures),  in  a  manner 
unusual  in  his  time.  The  customary  method  at  Oxford 
was  that  known  as  legere  bibliam  biblice,  whatever  that 
may  have  signified.  It  has  been  explained  as  "  reading 
chapter  by  chapter,  with  the  accustomed  glosses,  and 
such  interpretations  as  the  reader  could  add."1  This 
method  probably  differed  very  considerably  from  that 
in  vogue  with  the  theologians  themselves.  Theirs  was 
the  scholastic  mode  of  interpretation,  which  consisted 
in  selecting  a  text  and  treating  it  absolutely  apart  from 
its  context,  applying  to  it  a  multiplicity  of  senses. 
According  to  this  manner  of  expounding  Holy  Scripture 
there  was  more  philosophical  ingenuity  shown  by  the 
theologians  than  actual  knowledge  of  theology.2 
Tyndale,  some  years  later  than  Colet's  period  of 
lecturing,  relates,  in  his  "  Practice  of  Prelates,"  the 
fashion  of  scholastic  interpretation  and  the  causes  of 
this  particular  method.  His  words  lose  none  of  their 
accuracy  by  being  frank  and  expressive  : — 

In  the  Universities  they  have  ordained  that  no 
man  shall  look  on  the  Scripture  until  he  be  noselled  in 
heathen  learning  eight  or  nine  years,  and  armed  with 
false  principles  with  which  he  is  clean  shut  out  of  the 
understanding  of  the  Scripture.  .  .  .  And  then  when 
they  be  admitted  to  study  Divinity,  because  the  Scrip- 
ture is  locked  up  with  such  false  expositions  and  with 
false  principles  of  natural  philosophy  that  they  cannot 

1  Observations  on  the  Statutes  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  by  George 
Peacock,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  App.  A.,  p.  XLVI,  Note  i.  It  may  have  been 
a  method  similar  to  that  of  Dionysius  Carthusianus,  to  whose  com- 
mentaries Colet's  fragmentary  exposition  of  the  Ep.  to  the  Romans  bears 
some  resemblance.  Notice,  for  example,  the  likeness  in  style  between 
In  Epi.  Pauli  ad  Roma.  Enarra.,  Fol.  XI,  Explanatio  cap.  quarti 
(D.  Dionysii  Carthusiani  in  omn.  beati  Pauli  epistolas  comvientaria. 
Coloniae,  Anno  1538)  and  Lupton,  Colet's  Letters  to  Radulphus,  etc., 
London,  1876,  pp.  247,  251-2. 

2  Even  Erasmus  was  accustomed  to  use  the  scholastic  system  of  mani- 
fold senses,  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  104. 


26  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

enter  in,  they  go  about  the  outside  and  dispute  all 
their  lives  about  words  and  vain  opinions,  pertaining 
as  much  unto  the  healing  of  a  man's  heel  as  health  of 
his  soul.1 

Colet  may  have,  at  times,  found  it  either  suitable 
or  advisable  to  follow  a  system  of  exposition  similar 
to  that  of  Dionysius  Carthusianus,  because  it  was  an 
already  existing  method  against  which  he  had  no 
objection  save  that  it  lacked  explicitness.  But  he 
made  no  attempt  whatever  to  imitate  the  scholastic 
mode  then  so  prevalent  in  the  University.  Indeed, 
the  whole  nature  of  the  man  was  averse  to  that  diffuse 
inane  juggling  with  words  and  senses,  because  in  it  he 
could  not  see  any  practical  utility.  The  great  desire  of 
Colet,  the  principal  aim  of  his  labours,  was  to  present 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  not  as  an  arsenal  of  arguments,  but 
as  the  revelation  of  divine  truths  that  bore  direct 
relation  to  the  lives  and  the  beliefs  of  men.  Yet,  from 
the  time  of  St.  Augustine,  the  fourfold  interpretation 
of  Scripture  had  dominated  the  middle  ages.  An 
ancient  couplet  concisely  explained  the  system  : — 

Littera  gesta  docet,  quid  credas  allegoria, 
Moralis  quid  agas,  quo  tendas  anagogia. 

Against  it  Nicolas  of  Lyra,  a  Franciscan,  had  revolted 
long  before  Colet,  and  had  maintained  that  "  the 
mystical  explanation  which  departs  from  the  literal 
sense,  ought  to  be  deemed  of  no  value,"  and  that  "  it 
is  from  the  literal  sense  only,  and  not  from  the  mystical, 
that  a  proof  in  discussion  can  be  drawn."1 

Colet  uttered  a  similar  thought  in  a  letter  to  Eras- 
mus.' Nevertheless,  when  he  declared  his  views 
regarding  the  scholastic  method  of  fourfold  interpre- 

1  Expositions  and  Notes,  etc.,  by  William  Tyndale,  Parker  Society 
Pub.  1849,  p.  29l-  , 

2  Berger  (S.),  La  Bible  au  Seizieme  Siccle  (Etude  »ur  les  origine9  de  la 
critique  biblique),  Paris,  1879,  pp.  25-27. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  V,  129ID,  b. 


THE  METHOD  ADOPTED  BY  COLET      27 

tation,  he  admitted  the  possibility  of  a  figurative  sense 
accompanying  the  literal.1 

What  he  thus  expressed  as  an  opinion  he  illustrated 
in  the  lectures  that  attracted  such  a  number  of  Oxford 
doctors  and  students.  In  them  he  lent  a  wholly  new 
charm  to  the  exposition  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  He 
brought  into  clearness  the  course  of  the  Apostle's 
thoughts,  and  narrated  the  events  of  St.  Paul's  life, 
together  with  the  circumstances  that  preceded  and 
followed  the  occasion  upon  which  each  Epistle  was 
written.  Consequently,  his  work  was  biographical  and 
historical  as  well  as  exegetical.  He  loved  to  bring  out 
the  traits  of  the  Apostle's  character,  drawing,  indeed, 
his  lines  and  lineaments  from  the  particulars  which 
St.  Paul  himself  supplied  in  his  utterances  as  an 
inspired  teacher.  At  another  time,  he  would  direct 
attention  to  St.  Paul's  words  of  advice,  and  would  do 
this  with  a  carefulness  which  suggested  that  he  had 
in  mind  some  of  the  circumstances  of  the  Church  at  the 
time  of  this  lecturing  ;  as,  for  instance,  when  he 
pointed  out  the  prudent  counsel  given  by  the  Apostle 
to  the  Christians  of  the  early  Church  that  they  should 
observe  the  precept  of  Christ,  and  "  render  to  Caesar 
(albeit  a  tyrant  and  an  oppressor)  the  things  that  are 
Caesar's."1 

Indeed,  Colet's  eager  desire  for  the  reform  of  religion, 
and  what  he  thought  about  -the  blemishes  of  the  Church 
of  his  day,  betrayed  themselves  a  little  further  on,  when 
he  referred  to  the  spirit  of  covetousness  so  common 
among  the  priesthood,  in  words  that  echo  to  some  extent 
the  opinions  of  Wycliffe  on  ecclesiastical  possessions. 
And  these  ideas  he  expressed  much  more  forcibly  and 
freely  in  his  private  expositions.3 

1  Luplton,  Colet's  Two  Treatises  on  the  Hierarchies  of  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  London,  1869,  pp.  106-7. 

a  Lupton,  Colet's  Lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  London,  1873, 
pp.  89-98. 

*  Consult  his  private  exposition  of  Romans  v,  given  in  Lupton's 
edition  of  Coltt's  Letters  to  Radulphus,  p.  163. 


28  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

His  lectures  will  therefore  be  observed  to  have 
difleied  profoundly  from  those  with  which  the  Oxford 
doctors  were  familiar.  The  latter,  being  unacquainted 
with  the  commentaries  of  the  early  Fathers,  and 
drawing  most  of  their  theology  from  Duns  Scotus, 
looked  upon  the  lectures  as  altogether  new.  His 
friends  understood  better,  for  they  bestowed  upon  him 
the  descriptive  title  of  "  Champion  and  Supporter  of 
the  Old  Theology."1  But,  when  a  censure  is  being 
passed  on  the  puerilities  of  theological  disputations  in 
Oxford  at  this  period,  it  were  well  to  recollect  that  the 
University  had  been  forcibly  limited  in  the  range  of  the 
discussions  it  could  sanction ;  and  that  if  Colet's 
lectures  were  outside  that  range,  they  had  not  received 
(and  perhaps  could  not  have  been  accorded)  any 
official  approval  or  recognition.  And,  whilst  we  deplore 
the  intellectual  powers  wasted  upon  jejune  arguments 
drawn  from  Duns  Scotus,  which  would  have  been  much 
better  employed  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  we  must 
be  careful  not  to  underestimate  the  value  of  the  works 
themselves  of  that  eminent  schoolman.2 

Colet's  eagerness  to  aid  a  reform  of  religion  by 
originating  a  reconstitution  of  the  religious  principles 
of  the  audiences  he  attracted  to  his  lectures  was  crowned 
with  success,  at  least  so  far  as  to  win  for  himself  a  place 
in  their  regard,  which  gave  weight  to  his  counsels  and 
enabled  him  to  exercise  a  subtle  influence  upon  his 
generation.  He  spoke  with  such  evident  sincerity,  such 
candour  and  modesty,  as  to  gain  confidence  and  rever- 
ence, though  still  a  young  man.  But  Colet  was  old 
beyond  his  thirty  odd  years  of  life.  The  premature 
death  of  all  his  brothers  and  sisters  may  have  had 
something  to  do  with  this,  or  there  was  naturally  a 
vein  of  austerity  in  his  disposition.  However  it  arose, 
the  fact  was  early  recognized  by  all  who  met  him  that 
Colet  was  a  man  of  unusual  gravity  and  seriousness. 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  42. 

2  Gairdner,  Lollardy,  etc.,  I,  288. 


MEETING  OF  COLET  AND  ERASMUS      29 

Thus,  Colet  became  at  Oxford  the  centre  of  a  move- 
ment the  presence  of  which  was  marked  by  inquiry  and 
study  of  the  Scriptures.  Lecturing  was  only  one  mode 
by  which  he  laboured  for  this  cause.  At  one  time,  he 
made  an  abstract  of  the  Hierarchies  of  Dionysius,  the 
pseudo-Areopagite,  for  a  deeply  pious  friend.  At 
another,  he  wrote  Letters  to  Raduiphus  (probably  Ralph 
Collingwood,  afterwards  Dean  of  Lichfield)  on  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  Creation.  At  still  another  time, 
he  indited  for  one  who  was,  in  all  likelihood,  a  young 
relative  of  his,  that  incomplete  exposition  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  to  which  allusion  has  been 
already  made.  Moreover,  those  who  heard  him  lecture 
in  public  often  consulted  him  in  private.1 

These  notices  of  Colet's  labours  by  no  means  account 
for  the  seven  years  or  so  that  he  spent  at  Oxford,  but 
they  afford  plenty  of  room  for  inference  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  he  was  engaged  during  the  whole  time.  By 
public  lecture,  by  friendly  disputation,  by  conversation 
in  private,  and  by  personal  letter,  he  carried  on  the 
work  of  promoting  biblical  studies  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  religious  reforms.  The  ceaseless  energy  of 
Colet  in  this  enterprise  appears  from  time  to  time  in 
the  correspondence  of  the  great  humanist,  Erasmus. 

When  Colet  was  on  his  way  home  from  his  travels 
in  Italy  and  prance,  he  found  amongst  the  scholars  in 
Paris  one  named  Erasmus.  The  Dutch  scholar  was 
already  a  man  of  note.2  He  and  Colet,  destined  to 
become  intimate  friends  in  subsequent  years,  did  not, 
however,  meet  at  this  time.  The  commendatory  epistle 
written  by  Erasmus  to  Gaguin  regarding  his  History 
of  France  was  the  means  by  which  Colet  recognized 
the  power  of  the  young  humanist.  This  epistle  is 
noteworthy  as  having  been  the  first  work  of  Erasmus 

1  Cp.  the  first  of  six  epistles  of  Colet  given  in  App.  to  Knight,  Life 
of  Colet,  and  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  90. 

2  For  some  brief  particulars  as  to  the  early  life  of  Erasmus,  before  the 
beginnings  of  his  friendship  with  Colet,  see  App.  I. 


30  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

that  was  printed,  for  Gaguin  appended  it  to  his  History.1 
In  that  place,  contrasting  its  polished  eloquence  with 
the  rougher  style  of  the  book  it  praises,  it  was  bound  to 
confer  honour  upon  its  author  and  arrest  attention. 
Colet,  amongst  others,  remarked  it,  and  remembered 
the  writer  when,  about  four  years  later,  he  came  to 
England. 

In  the  period  that  intervened  between  Colet 's  perusal 
of  this  epistle  and  the  visit  of  Erasmus  to  England,  the 
latter  had  spent  most  of  his  time  at  Paris,  varied  with 
occasional  visits  to  Holland,  Cambrai,  and  Brabant. 
At  Paris,  Erasmus  followed  the  profession  of  a  teacher 
of  rhetoric,  and  as  such  became  in  1496  an  inmate  of 
the  English  boarding-house.  Here  he  had  several 
pupils  of  noble  rank,  young  Lord  Mount  joy,  Thomas 
Grey,  and  Robert  Fisher,  cousin  of  the  John  Fisher  who 
was  afterwards  Bishop  of  Rochester  and  a  frequent 
correspondent  with  Erasmus.  In  the  following  year, 
having  quarrelled  with  the  tutor  of  the  boarding-house, 
Erasmus  left  that  abode.'  Lord  Mount] oy  had  now  de- 
parted into  England  to  be  married  to  a  daughter  of  Sir 
William  Say,  but  he  returned,  in  the  earlier  part  of  1498, 
to  Paris  in  order  to  continue  his  studies,  being  still  a 
minor.  He  once  more  became  a  pupil  of  Erasmus. 
After  nearly  a  year,  Erasmus  went  to  Tournehem  Castle 
to  improve  his  acquaintance  with  the  Princess  of  Veer 
and  to  accept  tokens  of  her  patronage.8  Whilst  there 
he  received  an  invitation  to  become  an  inmate  of  the 
English  nobleman's  household,  a  suggestion  to  which 
he  did  not  at  once  accede.  However,  on  his  return  to 
Paris,  he  appears  to  have  taken  up  his  residence  with 
Lord  Mount]  oy,  an  arrangement  of  which  he  expresses 
his  satisfaction  to  his  friend  Batt.* 

1  It  is  to  be  found  in  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1817,  entitled  "  Erasmus  Rot. 
Roberto  Gaguino,  viro  undecunque  doctissimo." 

2  Drummond  (R.  B.),  Erasmus,  London,  187?,  I,  38-40. 

*  See  App.  I  for  some  information  as  to  the  Princess  of  Veer,  and 
Tournehem.  4  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  47F. 


SOJOURN  OF  ERASMUS  IN  ENGLAND     31 

At  this  juncture,  Erasmus  was  looking  forward  to  a 
journey  into  Italy  to  obtain  the  doctorate  of  Divinity 
in  that  home  of  learning.  Whilst  gathering  the  funds 
for  this  object,  and  hoping  against  hope  that  perhaps 
Mount  joy  might  travel  thither  and  take  him  as  a 
companion,  he  occupied  himself  with  the  production 
of  little  treatises.  Supplies  failing  and  with  them  his 
hopes  of  the  Italian  journey,1  he  accompanied  his  pupil 
to  England  in  the  summer  of  1499  and  lodged  in  the 
house  of  Lord  Mount  joy's  father-in-law,  Sir  William 
Say.  Here,  it  seems,  that  Erasmus  first  met  Thomas 
More.    It  was  in  every  respect  a  memorable  meeting.8 

Erasmus,  though  disappointed  in  his  expectations  of 
an  Italian  journey,  had  looked  forward  with  some  degree 
of  pleasure  to  his  English  trip.  WTien  he  had  come  to 
England,  his  impressions  of  the  country  and  the 
people  were  even  pleasanter  than  he  had  anticipated, 
and  he  wrote  to  his  friend  Faustus  saying  how  charmed 
he  was.  He  advised  Faustus  also  to  come  over  and 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  England,  and  concluded  his 
letter  with  an  amusing  sketch  of  the  simplicity  and 
freedom  of  English  customs.8  Erasmus  himself  was 
about  to  return  to  Paris,  but  was  prevented  by  the 
stringent  measures  adopted  by  the  government  against 
any  person  leaving  the  kingdom,  in  consequence  of  the 
flight  of  Edmund  de  la  Pole.4  It  was  a  time  of  great 
political  commotion  in  the  country.  Perkin  Warbeck 
went  from  prison  to  execution  in  the  autumn  of  this 
year.  The  unfortunate  Earl  of  Warwick,  the  next  heir 
male  of  the  Yorkist  line,  rapidly  followed  the  impostor 
to  the  same  fate.    The  Earl  of  Suffolk,  whose  father  had, 

1  Ibid.,  Ill,  22E  ;  Nichols,  I,  199. 

*  Drummond,  I,  69  ;  Seebohm,  p.  1 13. 

8  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  56d,e  ;  Nichols,  I,  203  ;  Nisard  (D.),  Etudes  sur  la 
Renaissance,  Paris,  1855  p.  31;  Froude  (J.  A.),  Life  and  Letteis  of 
Erasmus,  London,  1894,  p.  49. 

*  See  Paston  Letters  (edited  by  Gairdner),  VI,  No.  1065,  a  letter  from 
the  Earl  of  Oxford  to  Sir  John  Paston,  dated  20th  August,  1499,  con- 
taining instructions  to  watch  the  coast. 


32  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

only  four  years  before,  resigned  his  duchy  in  Parlia- 
ment, had  been  suspected  of  treason  and  had  fled  over- 
seas on  ist  July.1  His  flight  disturbed  King  Henry  VII 
exceedingly,  as  he  was  a  nephew  of  King  Edward  IV; 
and  besides,  his  brother,  John  de  la  Pole,  Earl  of 
Lincoln,  who  had  espoused  the  cause  of  Lambert 
Simnel  and  had  fallen  in  the  Battle  of  Stoke,  had  been 
previously  recognized  by  Richard  III  as  his  heir,  when 
that  king's  own  son  had  died.2 

Not  desiring  to  linger  amongst  the  uncongenial 
courtiers  in  London,  Erasmus  went  down  to  Oxford 
with  the  hope  of  advancing  his  studies  in  the  Greek 
language.  At  that  time  the  University  contained 
several  noted  scholars  deeply  versed  in  Greek  who  had 
acquired  that  language  in  Italy.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  Grocyn,  Linacre,  and  Latimer  were  there  together.3 

The  Canons  Regular  of  the  Augustinian  order  had, 
between  sixty  and  seventy  years  previously,  obtained 
a  College,  named  St.  Mary's,  at  Oxford,  the  site  of 
which  is  now  occupied  by  Frewen  Hall.  Some  of  the 
ruins  of  St.  Mary's  College  still  exist  in  New  Inn  Hall 
Street.4  The  Augustinian  was  Erasmus's  own  order, 
and  naturally  when  he  went  down  to  the  University 
he  took  up  his  residence  at  that  College  rather  than  in 
a  hospice.  For,  unlike  Colet,  who  had  come  to  Oxford 
as  a  teacher  three  years  before,  he  came  to  learn.  The 
freedom  which  Colet  required  was  not  necessary  to 
Erasmus. 

Of  the  Prior  of  St.  Mary's,  Richard  Charnock,  there 

1  Nichols,  I,  222  ;  Hume  (David),  Historv  of  England,  London,  1796, 
111,383. 

2  Green,  II,  76-77,  thinks  Henry  was  desirous  of  removing  all  rival 
claimants  to  the  crown,  in  view  of  the  Spanish  match  for  Prince  Arthur. 

3  Nichols,  I,  204,  doubts  if  there  were  any  of  them  in  residence  at  this 
time,  and  also,  I,  224,  if  Erasmus  studied  Greek  at  all  at  Oxford.  But 
Erasmus  himself  distinctly  states  he  began  his  Greek  studies  there,  I, 
233>  236  ;  cp.  also  Drummond,  I,  68,  69.  Wolsey  was  then  bursar  of 
Magdalen. 

4  Rashdall,  II,  479. 


ERASMUS'S  OXFORD  FRIENDS  33 

are  several  appreciative  notices  to  be  found  in  the 
letters  of  Erasmus.  Sixtin,  writing  to  Erasmus,  calls 
Charnock  "  humanissimus."  Erasmus  himself,  writing 
to  Mount  joy,  speaks  of  the  kindly  disposition  of  the 
Prior,  and  again,  in  his  long  and  interesting  epistle  to 
Sixtin,  terms  Charnock,  "  the  high-priest  of  the 
Graces,"  "  a  man  in  whom  learning  is  combined  with 
the  greatest  gentleness  and  probity."1  A  particularly 
sweet  and  attractive  character  appears  to  have  been 
that  of  the  ruler  of  this  College,  of  which  Erasmus  now 
found  himself  an  inmate.  Perhaps  the  warmth  of 
Erasmus's  appreciation  may  have  gained  no  little 
increase  from  the  violent  contrast  the  English  prior 
presented  to  the  ruler  of  that  only  other  College  wherein 
Erasmus  had  so  far  ever  resided — Standonee,  or 
Standonck,  of  the  College  of  Montaigu  in  Paris.  Of 
this  latter  College,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  whether 
Erasmushated  most  the  austerity  of  its  governor,  the  vile- 
ness  of  its  dietary,  or  the  futility  of  its  Scotistic  theology.' 
We  may  assume,  indeed,  that  the  humanist's  own  esti- 
mate of  the  persons  he  met  on  his  first  visit  to  Oxford 
is  that  which  we  find  in  a  letter  written  by  Batt,  his 
intimate  friend  and  correspondent,  to  Mountjoy, 
wherein  Charnock's  greatest  characteristic  is  termed 
"  humanitas,"  Colet's  "  eruditio,"  and  Thomas  More's 
"  suavitas."8 

Charnock  was  an  admirer  and  friend  of  Colet, 
between  whom  and  himself  there  must  have  been  many 
points  of  affinity  in  disposition.     Through  him  Colet 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  42D :  "  ille  Charitum  antistes  "  ;  and  42E:  "Prior, 
homo  (ita  me  Deus  amet)  non  minus  mirabili  mixtura,  ex  omnium  litera- 
rum  generibus  omnibus,  quam  ex  summa  humanitate,  summaque  item 
integritate  conflatus." 

1  Nisard,  pp.  19-20,  quotes  Rabelais'  condemnation  of  the  rigorous 
life  in  the  College  de  Montaigu.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that,  later  on,  Calvin 
received  some  portion  of  his  education  at  this  same  College — see  Beza's 
Life  of  Calvin,  in  Calvin's  Tracts,  trans,  by  Beveridge,  Edinburgh  (Calv. 
Trans.  Society),  1844. 

»  Eras.  Op.,111,  55D. 


34  <  OLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

appears  to  have  learnt  of  Erasmus's  arrival  at  Oxford 
and  sent  to  the  rising  scholar  a  letter,  in  which  "the 
touch  of  Puritan  sincerity  "  marks  a  strong  feature  in 
the  temperament  of  the  writer.  His  friend  Brumus,1 
he  said,  had  commended  Erasmus  to  him  in  a  letter, 
but  Erasmus  was  already  known  to  him.  He  had  read 
in  Paris  an  epistle  addressed  to  Gaguin  which  had 
revealed  to  him  the  erudition  of  the  Dutch  scholar, 
whom  he  now  welcomed  to  England.  He  professed 
himself  ready  to  assist  Erasmus  in  any  way  possible.2 
Erasmus  sent  an  immediate  reply,3  one  of  greater 
length  and  bearing  a  strong  contrast  to  the  plain, 
unartificial  epistle  of  Colet.  The  elaborate  style  and 
somewhat  fulsome  adulation  Erasmus  displays  in  his 
letter  is  however  pardonable  on  the  supposition  that, 
in  this  respect,  he  merely  followed  the  ordinary  standard 
of  rhetoric  to  which  he  was  accustomed.  Coming  from 
a  teacher  of  Rhetoric,  such  as  Erasmus  professed  to  be, 
touches  of  this  kind  were  perfectly  consistent  with 
sincerity.  And  indeed,  in  an  epistle  to  Lord  Mount]  oy, 
shortly  afterwards  Erasmus  declared  his  entire  happi- 
ness under  the  kindly  offices  of  Charnock  and  Colet.* 
The  adulatory  criticism  of  Colet's  style,  however,  which 
he  wrote  to  the  future  Dean,  misled  one  biographer  of 
Colet  into  the  supposition  that  the  Dutch  scholar  had 

1  Allen,  I,  242,  suggests  that  Brumus  stands  for  Grocyn.  He  jays  that 
palaeographically  the  name  may  be  so  read. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  9.  The  dates  given  in  the  Leyden  edition  to  this 
ep.  and  Erasmus's  reply  (apparently  on  the  authority  of  the  Opus 
Epistolarum  of  1529)  wer  ■  respi  ctively  1497  and  1498.  Neither  Du  Pin 
(Ellies),  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  Eng.  trans.,  Dublin,  1723,  III, 
288,  nor  Froude,  Life  and  Letters  of  Erasmus,  made  the  slightest  effort 
to  fix  the  chronologv  of  Erasmus's  epistles.  Seebohm,  Drummond,  and 
Lupton  attempted  to  do  it,  in  some  cases  with  conspicuous  success. 
Two  scholars  of  dis:inction.  Mr.  Nichols  and  Mr.  Allen,  have  recently 
published  works  on  this  subject  which  contain  the  results  of  serious 
endeavours  to  solve  a  difficult  problem.  In  the  present  treatise  I  have 
gratefully  availed  myself  of  their  findings.. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  39-40. 
*   Ibid.,  41A. 


FIRST  LETTER  OF  ERASMUS  TO  COLET  35 

attended  some  of  the  lectures  on  the  Pauline  Epistles 
before  the  two  had  been  introduced  to  each  other.1 
This  has  been  shown  to  be  an  unnecessary,  if  not  an 
actually  false  assumption.2 

The  fact  is,  Erasmus  was  indulging  in  a  little  well- 
meant  flattery,  and  founded  his  criticism  of  Colet's 
character  and  style  upon  all  the  good  things  that 
Charnock  had,  in  all  probability,  told  him  concerning 
Colet,and  upon  the  concise,  unaffected  letter  that  person 
had  sent  him.  Complimentary  epistles  and  poems  of 
that  date  were  almost  expected  to  contain  a  large 
amount  of  flattery.  During  his  career  Erasmus  fre- 
quently adopted,  for  what  were  in  his  eyes  worthy 
objects,  this  common  mode  of  correspondence,  and 
sometimes  became  even  fulsome  in  his  flatteries,  as 
much  to  his  own  disgust  as  to  that  of  his  best  friends. 
But  he  never  reached  the  height  (or  depth)  of  obse- 
quious adulation  that  the  Italian  writers,  Navagero 
and  Castiglione,  attained  a  few  years  later,  when  Pope 
Julius  II  was  described  by  one  of  them  as  "  novus  ex 
alto  demissus  Olympo  Deus,"  and  by  the  other  as 
"  Quern  Deus  ipse  Erebi  fecit  Coelique  potentem  ut  nutu 
pateant  utraque  regna  tuo."3  Alongside  expressions 
of  this  kind  the  words  of  praise  which  Erasmus  ad- 
dressed to  Colet  seem  very  mild.  Indeed  it  is  perhaps 
fair  to  assume  that  Erasmus  made  use  of  polished  and 
laudatory  phrases  to  ingratiate  himself  with  one  whose 
reputed  character  he  admired,  and  whose  friendship 
he  hoped  would  prove  agreeable  and  profitable.  Under- 
neath all  the  polish,  however,  lay  a  real  appreciation  of 
Colet,  so  far  as  Erasmus  knew  him  ;  and  it  is  worthy  of 
note,  that  the  subsequent  correspondence  which  passed 
between  them  displays  the  high  esteem  they  came  early 
to  entertain  for  each  other.    All  merely  flattering  ex- 

1  Seebohm,  p.  33. 

2  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  99  ;  Nichols,  I,  208. 

3  Symonds  (J.  A.),  Renaissance  in  Italy  :  Revival  of  Learning  in  Italy, 
London, 1882,  pp. 493-4. 


36  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

pressions  disappear  from  Erasmus's  epistles  to  Colet, 
and,  as  one  reads  their  letters,  one  cannot  but  feel  the 
ring  of  sincerity  and  courtesy  in  any  compliments  they 
exchange. 

A  common  friendship  drew  together  at  Oxford  a 
small  body  of  theologians  remarkable  for  their  erudi- 
tion and  estimable  qualities.  It  may  be  imagined, 
though  it  cannot  be  proved  of  all  of  them,  that  their 
attitude  towards  the  dominant  theological  system  in 
the  University  was  not  that  of  entire  satisfaction. 
Colet  formed  the  centre  of  the  little  band,  and  those  who 
gathered  around  him  may  be  considered  as  admirers 
of  and  sympathizers  with  his  work  at  Oxford.  In  such 
a  company  Erasmus  occupied  the  place  of  a  free-lance, 
a  humanist,  a  "  poet,"  rather  than  that  of  a  theologian. 
In  an  epistle  to  Sixtin,  a  Frisian  who  had  graduated 
at  Siena  and  was  now  practising  in  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  of  England  as  a  lawyer,  Erasmus  has  preserved 
to  all  generation  a  glimpse  of  a  University  dinner-party 
in  the  last  year  but  one  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  at 
the  same  time  has  afforded  us  some  interesting  parti- 
culars regarding  certain  traits  of  Colet's  character.1 
Having  mentioned  the  more  important  guests,  Erasmus 
continued  : — 

There  had  been  some  discussion  on  several  points, 
when  a  fierce  battle  began  upon  this  one.  Colet  said 
that  Cain  had  first  offended  in  this  fault,  that,  as  if  in 
distrust  of  the  goodness  of  the  Creator  and  in  too 
great  reliance  upon  his  own  labours,  he  was  the  first 
to  plough,  whilst  Abel,  satisfied  with  what  came  of  its 
own  accord/  fed  sheep.  We  opposed  him,  each  of  us 
on  our  own  account,  the  divine  with  logical,  I  with 
rhetorical,  arguments.  Even  Hercules  is  no  match 
for  two,  the  Greeks  say.  But  our  friend  overcame 
all.  He  seemed  impelled  by  a  sacred  fervour,  and 
endowed    with    almost    superhuman    exaltation    and 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  42-43.    Allen,  I,  268,  suggests  that  Wolsey  may  have 
been  a  guest  at  this  convivial  gathering. 
8  "  Sponte  nascentibus  contentus." 


COLET'S  INFLUENCE  OVER  ERASMUS     37 

majesty.  His  voice  was  altered,  his  eyes  took  on 
another  kind  of  glance,  his  face  and  appearance 
seemed  different  and  greater,  and  he  was  for  the  time 
being  inspired.1 

But  this  serious  turn  to  the  conversation  did  not 
commend  itself  to  Erasmus,  who  thereupon  invented  a 
quaint  story  of  the  means  by  which  Cain  cheated  the 
angel  that  was  guarding  Eden  and  thus  drew  the  wrath 
of  God  upon  himself. 

On  this  and  sundry  other  occasions,  when  Erasmus 
and  Colet  came  into  conflict  on  questions  of  biblical 
interpretation,  the  difference  of  their  minds  became 
very  noticeable.  It  was  not  only  at  the  convivial  gather- 
ing, but  throughout  his  stay  at  Oxford,  during  his  first 
visit  to  England,  that  Erasmus  displayed  an  unsettled 
mind  upon  theological  matters.  He  was  indeed  not  at 
all  kindly  disposed  to  the  study  of  theology,  and 
purposely  avoided  running  counter  to  prevalent  theo- 
logical notions,  lest  he  should  be  termed  a  heretic.8 
In  this  respect  he  exhibited  the  usual  attitude  of 
humanists  of  that  period  towards  the  condition  of 
Christian  teaching.  However  much  they  disbelieved 
in  Christianity  itself,  they  were  careful  not  to  pro- 
mulgate opinions  contrary  to  the  accepted  doctrines 
of  the  Church.8 

Yet  Colet  was  exercising  a  powerful,  if  friendly, 
influence  over  Erasmus  as  regarded  theological  ques- 
tions. It  is  true  that,  in  acuteness  and  versatility, 
the  Dutch  humanist  was  the  superior  ;  but  Colet  had 
the  fixity  of  purpose  and  thought  which  the  other 
lacked.  The  sincerity,  the  single-mindedness,  the 
austere  rectitude,  the  purity  in  word  and  action,  of  the 
Englishman  made  a  life-long  impression  on  Erasmus, 

1  "  Aliud  sonabat  vox,  aliud  tuebantur  oculi,  alius  vultus,  alius 
adspectus,  majorque  vidcri,  afflatus  est  numine  quando." 

1  Consult  Vita  Erasmi'm  Eras.  Op.,  I  ;  Seebohm,  p.  106. 

8  A  remarkable  exception  was  that  of  Laurentius  Valla — see  Symonds, 
pp.  259-263. 


38  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING. 

which  he  fittingly  acknowledged  in  the  sketch  that  he 
made  of  Colet's  life  for  Justus  Jonas  in  1519.1  Although 
the  effect  of  Colet's  influence  upon  him  was  not  out- 
wardly very  manifest,  it  was  none  the  less  real  on  that 
account  ;  Colet  caused  him  to  think  seriously  and 
profoundly  upon  subjects  that  had  not  hitherto  formed 
an  important  part  of  his  thoughts  or  studies,  with 
results  that  have  left  their  mark  upon  modern  thought. 
Too  much  emphasis,  therefore,  can  hardly  be  laid  on  the 
indications  of  Colet's  influence  over  the  mind  of 
Erasmus. 

Between  the  two  there  were  many  friendly  meetings, 
apparently  at  the  residence  of  the  Englishman,  at 
which  grave  discussions  took  place.  The  vehemence  and 
resolution  of  Colet's  character  would  often  overcome 
the  calmer,  more  profound,  but  less  definite,  judgment 
of  Erasmus  ;  and  the  humanist,  on  returning  to  his 
lodging,  customarily  recapitulated  the  whole  discussion 
for  his  own  satisfaction.  Sometimes  this  exercise 
produced  a  determination  to  look  still  further  into 
authorities  on  the  subject,  and  sometimes  a  frank 
admission  of  the  substantial  accuracy  of  Colet's 
position. 

One  of  these  debates  related  to  our  Lord's  agony  in 
Gethsemane,  a  subject  that  not  only  gave  rise  to 
several  oral  discussions  between  them,  but  also  origina- 
ted long  argumentative  epistles.  So  deeply  did  Eras- 
mus meditate  upon  it  that  it  occupied  his  thoughts  for 
several  years,  and  he  finally  published  a  treatise  De 
Taedio  ct  Pavore  Chrisli,  about  the  time  of  Colet's 
appointment  to  the  deanery  of  St.  Paul's.  But, 
during  this  first  residence  at  Oxford,  Erasmus  composed 

1  "  .  .  .  .  de  procellis,  quibus  explorata  est  hominis  ingenua  pietas 
cujus  minimam  portionem  debebat  naturae  suae.  Siquidem  animo 
praeditus  erat  insigniter  excelso,  et  omnis  injuriae  impatientissimo  .  .  . 
adversus  haec  ita  pugnavit  philosophia,  sacrisque  studiis,  vigiliis,  jejuniis, 
ac  precibus,  ut  totum  vitae  cursum  ab  hujus  seculi  inquinamentis  purum 
peregerit." — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  458A. 


COLET  INVITES  ERASMUS'S  ASSISTANCE  39 

a  long  epistle  to  Colet,1  in  which  he  restated  the 
grounds  of  his  opinions.  To  this  letter  Colet  replied  in 
a  Responsio  ad  argumenta  Erasmiana,  De  taedio  et 
pavore  Christi.2  It  is  certain  that  the  wordy  warfare 
proceeded  further,  because  a  rejoinder  of  Erasmus  to 
Colet 's  Responsio  is  extant,  and  has  been  lately  pub- 
lished for  the  first  time.3 

Several  conflicts  of  the  above  type  probably  took 
place,  though  perhaps  they  were  not  so  voluminous  or 
profound.  The  debates  served  one  great  purpose  if 
no  other,  namely,  that  they  caused  the  two  friends  to 
entertain  an  increased  esteem  for  each  other.  Whether 
these  many  conversations  and  exchanges  of  cor- 
respondence are  to  be  regarded  as  the  origin  or  source 
of  the  idea  which  Colet  now  began  to  cherish,  in  respect 
of  Erasmus's  settlement  in  England,  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained, but  there  is  fair  room  for  surmise.  When 
introducing  himself  to  the  Dutch  scholar  he  had 
indulged  the  hope  that  the  latter  would  put  his  talents 
at  the  service  of  the  English  nation.  His  further 
acquaintance  with  the  brilliant  young  foreigner  raised 
his  expectations  still  higher.  The  winter  was  advancing, 
and  Erasmus  had  now  been  a  [cw  months  at  Oxford, 
yet  he  had  given  no  token  of  an  intention  to  take  up 
work  at  the  University  or  in  London.  Colet,  therefore, 
reproached  him  for  not  doing  so.  Probably  Erasmus 
made  some  mention  of  his  desire  to  return  to  Paris, 
and  thereupon  Colet  replied  in  censures  that  exhibited 
his  own  disappointment  at  his  new  friend's  resolve 
to  depart  from  the  University.  This,  however,  rests 
on  deductions  made  from  an  epistle  of  Erasmus's  ; 
none  of  Colet 's  on  this  matter  are  extant,  and  of  Eras- 

1  In  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1792B-D,  this  ep.  is  given  as  if  complete  in  itself  ; 
in  Op.,  V,  1 265A-D,  it  appears  more  naturally  as  merely  the  first  paragraph 
of  the  long  epistolary  treatise  De  TaeJio,  etc.  Allen,  I,  249-257,  dates 
the  latter  ep.  October,  1499,  anc^  adds  a  second  part  from  the  Gouda  MS., 
1324, fo.  159. 

2  Eras.  Op.,V,  129 1-2. 

3  Allen,  I,  254-260,  prints  it  from  the  Gouda  MS.,  1324,  fo.  153. 


40  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

mus's  only  that  one  in  which  he  answered  the  re- 
proaches of  Colet  on  his  refusal  to  share  in  the  noble 
work  of  biblical  exposition. 

Probably  there  was  a  lack  of  reasonableness  in  Colet 's 
endeavours  to  attach  Erasmus  to  his  favourite  scheme. 
The  latter  had  his  own  plans  for  himself  ;  besides,  the 
kind  of  labour  to  which  he  was  being  urged  differed 
widely  from  that  upon  which  his  mind  had  been  long 
fixed,  it  involved  possible  dangers,  it  demanded  ex- 
ceptional qualifications,  it  needed  a  particularly  en- 
thusiastic spirit  for  its  execution.  Erasmus  felt  in  no 
wise  suited  for  it.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  to  be 
remembered  that  Colet's  position  was  one  of  extreme 
difficulty.  He  stood,  in  fact,  alone.  His  need  of  a 
sympathetic  colleague  was  apparent  to  himself.  Perhaps 
too,  he  perceived  the  advantage  of  having  someone  who 
would  be  able  to  extend  the  field  of  operation,  and 
continue  the  movement  he  had  initiated  at  the  Uni- 
versity, in  the  event  of  his  own  removal.  The  idea 
that  Erasmus  would  prove  a  suitable  assistant  and 
successor  came  to  him  quite  naturally. 

Although  the  humanist  was  reluctant  to  pain  so 
dear  a  friend  as  Colet  had  become  to  him,  he  con- 
tinued unshaken.  Kind  words  and  remonstrances  were 
alike  ineffectual  to  turn  him  from  his  purpose.  But 
he  wrote  to  Colet  an  epistle1  every  phrase  of  which 
was  designedly  conciliatory,  whilst  it  set  forth  with 
clearness  his  long-settled  determination.  The  letter  is 
one  that  possesses  quite  an  unusual  value,  since,  though 
written  with  another  object  in  view,  and  though  it 
is  free  from  caricature  and  sarcasm,  it  renders  an  exact 
account  of  the  puerilities  of  the  "  theologasters  "  and 
the  worthlessness  of  the  prevalent  theology  : — 

.  .  .  Thou  sayest  that  thou  dost  dislike  the  modern 
kind  of  theologians,  who  grow  old  in  vain  subtleties 
and  sophistical  quibblings.     Thou  art  in  strong  agree- 
ment with  myself,  friend  Colet.      Not  that  I  condemn 
1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1789-1791  ;  V,  1263-4. 


REFUSAL  OF  ERASMUS  41 

their  studies,  for  I  would  not  wish  anyone  to  cease 
from  study  altogether;  but,  when  these  studies  are 
isolated  and  not  based  on  any  fairly  ancient  or  choice 
literature,  they  appear  to  me  such  as  are  calculated 
to  render  a  man  a  sciolist  and  a  contentious  fellow  ; 
whether  they  are  likely  to  make  a  man  wise  let  others 
see  for  themselves.  These  men  are  wasting  their 
intellects  in  dry  and  barren  sentences.   .   .   .' 

Since  thou,  Colet,  hast  undertaken  to  do  battle  with 
this  impregnable  class  of  men  for  the  restoration,  as 
far  as  thou  art  able,  of  the  old  and  true  Theology  to 
its  pristine  grace  and  dignity,  thou  hast  entered, 
believe  me,  upon  a  sphere  of  labour  in  many  respects 
most  admirable — as  regards  Theology  herself  most 
pious,  for  all  studies  and  for  this  flourishing 
University  of  Oxford  most  wholesome,  but,  to  speak 
the  truth,  full  of  trouble  and  ill-will.  No  doubt, 
among  theologians  themselves  there  are  not  a  few 
who  are  willing  and  able  to  aid  thy  honourable  en- 
deavours. ...  I  am  amazed,  however,  not  at  thy 
taking  on  thy  shoulders  such  a  burden,  to  which  thou 
art  equal,  but  at  thy  inviting  me,  a  person  of  no 
importance,  to  partnership  in  so  noble  an  office.  For 
thou  dost  exhort  me,  yea,  thou  dost  almost  reproach- 
fully demand,  that,  as  thou  art  expounding  Paul,  so 
likewise  1  should  expound  the  ancient  Moses  or  the 
eloquent  Isaiah,  and,  as  thou  sayest,  try  to  kindle  the 
decaying  studies'  of  this  University  during  the  winter 
months.  But  I,  who  have  learnt  to  dwell  alone,  know 
well  that  my  equipment  is  defective,  and  I  do  not  claim 
so  much  learning  as  is  necessary  for  such  a  task,  nor 
do  I  think  I  have  strength  of  mind  sufficient  to  endure 

1  Cf.  ibid.,  Ill,  1790B  :  "  Sic  priscorum  ingeniis  expeditam  (Thcolo- 
giam),  spinis  quibusdam  impediunt,  involvcntes  omnia,  dum  omnia 
conantur  resolvere,  quemadmodum  ipsi  loquuntur." 

*  "  Frigentia  studia."  That  there  was  more  than  mere  figure  of  speech 
in  such  a  term  may  be  seen  in  the  section  on  "  Hardships  of  Student 
Life,"  in  Rashdall's  Universities  of  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages,  vol.  II, 
part  II,  p.  665  :  "  In  France  and  England  we  hear  nothing  of  fires  in  the 
School  and  there  are  very  slight  traces  of  them  in  College  chambers  .  .  . 
there  was  no  warmth  but  what  was  supplied  by  the  straw  or  rushes  upon 
the  floor." 


42  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

the  ill-will  of  so  many  men  resolutel)  looking  after 
their  own  interests.  That  work  demands,  not  a 
novice,  but  a  most  skilful  general.  .   .  . 

Still,  so  far  am  I  from  desiring  to  resisl  thy  delight- 
ful and  holy  labours,  that  (since  1  am  not  yet  a  fit 
assistant)  I  will  promise  to  be  an  earnest  encourager 
and  promoter  of  them;  and  when  1  become  aware  that 
1  possess  the  requisite  strength  and  abilities  I  will 
myself  take  my  stand  on  thy  side,  and  devote,  if  not 
highly  valuable,  at  least  earnest  labour  to  the  restora- 
tion of  Theology.1 

Meanwhile,  nothing  can  be  more  delightful  to  me 
than  to  discuss,  as  we  have  begun,  the  1  loly  Scriptures 
daily  with  one  another,  either  in  conversation  or  by 
letter. 

Farewell,  my  Colet.  The  courteous  prelate, 
Richard  Charnock,  my  host  and  our  common  friend, 
has  bidden  me  to  greet  thee  heartily  in  his  name. 

Oxford,  from  the  College  of  the  Canons  of  the 
Order  of  St.  Augustine,  commonly  called  St.  Mary's. 
Very  soon  after  the  despatch  of  this  epistle,  that  is, 
in  January,  1500,  Erasmus  left  England.  He  had  been 
altogether  only  a  few  months  in  this  country,  and, 
during  that  time,  his  most  serious  undertaking  had  been 
the  compilation  of  the  Adages.2  During  the  intervals 
between  the  periods  of  friendly  intercourse  and  this 
work,  he  may  have  exercised  himself  in  the  study  of  the 
Greek  language,  but  on  this  point  nothing  very  certain 
can  be  ascertained.3 

One  thing  seems  clear.  The  influence  of  Colet  upon 
Erasmus  was  permanent  in  its  effects.  Mr.  Seebohm 
has  drawn  attention  to  that  influence  and  has  hardly 
exaggerated  its  extent.4     We  may  even  assume  that 

1  Within  a  year  afterwards,  Erasmus  was  eagerly  working  at  his  Greek 
studies  for  the  purpose  of  devoting  himself  entirely  to  the  study  of  sacred 
literature. —  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  6oa  5  cf.  ibid.,  85B. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  II,  5  ;  Nichols,  I,  241. 

3  Drummond,  I,  8 1 .    Cp.,  however,  Nichols,  I,  224,  270.  283. 

4  Oxf.  Rcf.,  pp.  102-1 1 2.  Nichols,  I,  224,  thinks  that  this  influence  has 
been  probably  exaggerated.  But  recently,  Allen,  II,  182,  has  produced 
additional  evidence  for  the  substantial  accuracy  of  Seebohm's  assertions. 


ERASMUS'S  DEPARTURE  43 

the  publication  of  the  Novum  Instrumentum,  with  its 
Annotations,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  late  result  of  the 
promise  made  by  the  humanist  to  Colet.  Perhaps  a 
similar  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  publication 
of  the  epistle  containing  the  promise  as  a  prefix  to  the 
treatise  De  Tacdio  et  Pavorc,  etc.,  to  which  it  can  bear 
no  other  relation.  In  another  place  Erasmus  acknow- 
ledges1 that  it  was  Colet 's  indignant  denunciation  of 
Aquinas  which  set  him  upon  a  more  thorough  exami- 
nation of  that  schoolman's  writings,  with  the  result 
that  he  came  to  share  in  his  English  friend's  contempt. 
Of  course  it  may  be  doubted  if  this  incident  occurred 
during  the  first  visit  of  Erasmus  to  England.  Such 
instances,  however,  do  not  reveal  so  clearly  the  extent 
of  the  impression  Colet  made  on  the  mind  of  the 
humanist,  in  their  first  short  period  of  intercourse,  as 
do  the  words  of  the  next  letter  he  wrote  to  Colet,  after 
some  years  had  passed,  and  the  frequent  recurrence  in 
their  later  correspondence  to  opinions  which  were  first 
broached  in  the  winter  of  1499. 2 

Before  his  departure  from  England,  Erasmus  wrote 
a  hasty  letter  on  5th  December  to  Robert  Fisher,  who 
was  in  Italy,  declaring  that  only  for  Lord  Mount  joy's 
carrying  him  off  to  England,  he  would  have  been  in 
Italy  by  this  time.  He  informed  Fisher  that  he  was 
pleased  with  England,  as  regarded  both  climate  and 
people.  Erudition  profound  and  ancient  he  had  met 
with  in  England  to  such  a  degree  that,  except  for  the 
sake  of  seeing  Italy,  he  had  no  great  desire  to  travel 

1  Ep.  to  Jod.  Jonas,  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  458E.  Erasmus  had  already  come 
to  entertain  the  greatest  contempt  for  the  Scotistic  theology. —  Ibid.,  Ill, 
76,  ep.  to  Thomas  Grey,  dated  by  Nichols,  I,  (4),  as  "  Paris,  end  of  1497," 
and  by  Allen,  I,  190,  as  "  August  1497." 

*  Towards  the  close  of  Colet's  life  a  letter  was  addressed  to  him  by 
Marquard  von  Hatstcin,  in  which  the  writer  says  that  Erasmus  had  pro- 
claimed to  all  the  world  the  praises  of  England  and  Colet,  and,  adds 
Hatstein,  "  I  fancy  that  each  of  you  owes  much  to  the  other,  but  which 
of  the  two  owes  most  I  am  doubtful." — Apologia  Erasmi  Rot.  .  .  .  Bas. 
ap.  lo.  Frobenium,  An.  MDXX.,  pp.  139-40.    See  App.  II. 


44  COLET'S  BIBLE  TEACHING 

thither.     Then   follow  little  notices  of  the  principal 
persons  whose  acquaintance  he  had  made  : — 

I  seem  to  hear  Plato  himself  when  I  listen  to  my 
Colet.  Who  docs  not  wonder  at  the  p<  1 1<<  tion  of 
Grocyn's  knowledge?  What  is  there  more  acute, 
sounder,  and  liner  than  the  judgment  of  Linacre? 
What  has  Nature  ever  devised  more  agreeable, 
pleasant,  or  felicitous  than  Thomas  More's  talents? 
Hut  why  should  I  go  through  the  remainder  of  the 
list  ?  The  harvest  of  ancient  erudition  is  here  wonder- 
fully extensive  and  plenteous,  wherefore  thou  oughtesl 
to  return  the  quicker.' 

Erasmus  did  not,  however,  get  out  of  England  as 
pleasantly  as  he  desired.  There  was  at  that  time  a 
law  of  King  Edward  III  directed  against  the  removal 
of  coin  from  the  realm  of  England,  and  Henry  VII  had 
re-enacted  this  law.  Erasmus  had  accordingly  changed 
the  money  he  possessed  into  foreign  coin,  in  the  belief 
that  the  law  only  referred  to  English  coin.  Both  More 
and  Mountjoy  had  advised  him  to  this  course.  They 
were  mistaken  in  this,  for  the  law,  which  included  all 
coin,  whether  English  or  foreign,  within  its  scope,  was 
stringently  enforced,  and  Erasmus  lost  all  his  money 
at  Dover.2 

Thus  disastrously  ended  the  first  visit  of  Erasmus  to 
England.  In  spite  of  his  serious  loss,  he  looked  back  to 
it  with  pleasure,  and  frequently  in  subsequent  3'ears  ne 
expressed  an  ardent  wish  to  taste  once  more  the 
happiness  of  a  prolonged  sojourn  in  England.3 

1  Fras.  Op.,  Ill,  MA,  b. 

*  Eras.  Op.,  Praef.,  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations  ;  Allen,  I,  275. 

a  Ibid.,  Ill,  52E,  ep.  to  James  Tutor,  dated  18th  July,  1501,  by  Nichols, 
I»  333  :  "  Nonnunquam  de  repetenda  Britannia  cogito,  ut  meo  cum 
Coleto  mensem  unum  aut  alterum  in  Thcologiae  sacris  verser,  .  .  .  neque 
enim  ignoro,  quantus  ex  ca  re  fructus  mihi  capi  possit,  sed  terrcnt  infames 
scopuli  adhuc,  ad  quos  olirn  naufragium  feci." 


CHAPTER  III 

COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S.     EDUCATION  AND  SATIRE 

AS   INSTRUMENTS   FOR  THE   BETTERMENT   OF 

RELIGION 

There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Colet's  work  had 
raised  much  or,  indeed,  any  hostility  against  him  at 
the  University.  Nevertheless,  the  remark  of  Erasmus 
that  "  he  had  not  sufficient  strength  of  mind  to  endure 
the  ill-will  of  men,  who  (after  all,  it  must  be  confessed) 
were  defending  their  own  interests,"  would  at  least 
give  the  impression  that,  though  no  open  hostility  was 
shown  to  the  lecturer,  he  was  already  awakening  a 
spirit  of  opposition  amongst  the  theologians.  What 
might  have  happened  if  Erasmus  and  some  others  of 
Colet's  friends  had  elected  to  second  his  efforts  no  one 
can  tell. 

Colet's  unsupported  endeavours,  to  all  outward 
appearances,  provoked  no  public  opposition.  The  plan 
upon  which  he  had  been  working  was  not  of  a  nature 
to  arouse  a  spirit  of  either  enthusiastic  support  or 
resistance.  There  was  no  revolt  against  existing 
authorities,  or  uprooting  of  old  customs.  He  sought 
only  to  promote  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  to  render  the  prevalent  conceptions  of 
the  Christian  faith  truer  and  more  intelligent.  The 
exposition  of  the  Bible  was  the  most  necessary  work  in 
that  age  of  superstition,  credulity,  and  irreligion  on  the 
part  of  the  clergy.  Moreover,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  Colet  had  any  wish  to  become  the  leader  of  a  great 

♦5 


46  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

movement  at  variance  with  the  degenerate  scholasticism 
of  the  time.  His  retiring,  scholarly  tastes  would  have 
made  the  inevitable  struggle  intolerable  to  him.  He 
probably  experienced  all  the  happiness  of  the  successful 
toiler  when  he  observed  the  first  growth,  among  the 
younger  members  of  the  University,  of  a  spirit  of  inquiry 
and  Bible  study.  He  was  content  that  the  true  harvest 
of  his  labours  should  appear  in  after  years,  that  other 
hands  should  reap  the  fruits  of  his  sowing.1 

Unobtrusive  as  it  was,  his  self-appointed  task  under- 
taken to  supply  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  needs  of 
the  age  could  scarcely  fail  to  be  productive  of  remark- 
able effects,  although  these  might  not  be  quick  in 
revealing  themselves. 

Whilst  still  busily  occupied  in  the  work  of  exposition 
of  the  Scriptures,  Colet  was,  at  the  instance  of  King 
Henry  VII,  called  to  London  to  receive  the  Deanery  of 
St.  Paul's.2  The  date  when  the  temporalities  of  the 
dignity  were  handed  over  is  well  settled  as  May,  1505. 
But  apparently  Colet  administered  the  office  of  Dean 
for  more  than  a  year  previous  to  this  date.  Dr. 
Sherburne,  who  had  hitherto  been  Dean  of  St.  Paul's, 
was  appointed  in  1504  to  the  vacant  bishopric  of  St. 
David's.  This  ecclesiastic  was  at  the  time  performing 
an  ambassador's  duties  at  Rome.  It  is,  therefore, 
possible  that,  in  the  absence  of  Dean  Sherburne,  and 
in  anticipation  of  his  appointment  to  the  office,  Colet 
acted  as  Dean  even  in  the  latter  part  of  1503. 3 

1  Knight,  Life  of  Colet,  p.  27,  gives  a  note  from  Antiq.  Brit,  sub  Gul. 
Warham  :  "  Coletus  Paulinas  epistolas  Oxonii  publice  interpretatus  est  ; 
simileque  scripturas  declarandi  institutum  Cantabrigiae  turn  sequutus 
est  doctor  Warner.  ..." 

Colet  seems  to  have  influenced  in  the  same  direction  Tyndale,  Ralph 
Collingwood  (afterwards  Dean  of  Lichfield),  and  George  Stafford — see 
Seebohm,  p.  137  ;  Knight,  p.  59  ;  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  1 14. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  4560D. 

3  Such  is  the  inference  made  by  Prof.  M.  Burrows  in  Collectanea,  2nd 
Series,  Oxford,  1890,  p.  355,  which  is  supported  by  Erasmus's  ep.  of 
congratulation  (dated  by  Allen  as  December,  1504)  and  by  More's  lefer 


ABUSES  IN  THE  CATHEDRAL  47 

At  the  time  of  his  promotion,  Colet  had  the  degree 
of  Doctor  of  Divinity  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford,  but  whether  it  was  a  reward  for  his 
gratuitous  Divinity  Lectures,  or,  as  is  more  likely,  in 
honour  of  his  high  preferment,  is  not  known.1  One 
thing  is  certain  :  he  made  no  effort  to  obtain  any  such 
distinction.2 

Colet's  reforming  energies  now  took  another  direc- 
tion. Hitherto  all  his  powers  had  been  exerted  in  the 
furtherance  of  biblical  studies  as  a  means  of  reviving 
religion.  Now  there  came  upon  him,  in  addition,  the 
burden  of  correcting  ecclesiastical  abuses.  St.  Paul's, 
in  his  days,  presented  more  than  sufficient  scope  for  a 
fearless  and  conscientious  reformer.  Ancient  custom 
had  turned  the  nave  of  the  Cathedral  into  a  busy  mart 
and  a  resort  for  newsmongers  ;  the  precincts  were  the 
haunt  of  vicious  persons.  The  new  Dean's  character 
warrants  the  surmise  that  he  attempted  to  enforce  a 
greater  reverence  for  God's  House.3  If  he  did  make 
the  attempt,  the  long-established  evil  proved  too 
strong  for  him,  because  it  continued  unabated  to  much 
later  times. 

Two  departments  in  which  Colet  effected  beneficial 
changes  are  mentioned  by  Erasmus  :  the  restoration 
of  the  fallen  discipline  of  the  corporation,  and  the 
introduction  of  sermons  on  all  festivals.4 

When  he  went  to  the  deanery,  Colet  had  as  diocesan 
a  man  who  was,  in  all  probability,  in  sympathy  with 
his  aims.5    Bishop  Barnes,  however,  died  at  the  end 

referred  to  below.     See  also  Nichols,  I,  374;    Lupton,   Colet,  p.   120; 
Seebohm,  p.  138. 

1  The  Doctor's  degree  was  conferred  in  1504,  according  to  Anthony  a 
Wood,  but  neither  Seebohm  (Appendix  on  Colet's  preferments)  nor 
Nichols  (I,  374)  feel  any  confidence  in  the  assertion,  owing  to  a  lack  of 
official  confirmation. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  95A,  456c. 

3  For  Colet's  ordinances  in  15 18,  see  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  134. 
*  Eras.  Op.,  111,4560. 

6  Lupton  makes  a  mistake  when  he  says  Colet  came  to  St.  Paul's 


48  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

of  1505,  and  his  successor,  Dr.  Fitzjames,  never  showed 
any  friendliness  to  the  Dean.  Colet's  attempts  to  set 
the  affairs  of  the  Cathedral  in  order  would,  perhaps, 
have  reached  some  degree  of  permanent  success  under 
the  former  if  he  had  lived  a  few  years  longer,  but,  under 
the  latter,  met  with  very  little.  The  exact  nature  of 
the  improvements  which  the  new  Dean  tried  to  effect 
can  only  be  ascertained  by  inferences  drawn  from  the 
known  condition  of  things  at  St.  Paul's.  The  chantry 
priests,  the  vicars  of  the  canons,  and  the  canons  them- 
selves, either  neglected  their  duties  or  performed  them 
in  a  perfunctory  manner.  Their  worldliness,  their 
unedifying  lives,  their  covetousness,  their  secular 
occupations,  lay  open  to  censure.1  We  feel  sure  that 
Colet  reproved  these  idle  and  unworthy  ecclesiastics. 
But  his  authority  had  narrow  limits  ;  and,  not  even 
the  assistance  of  Archbishop  Warham,  or  that  ef 
Wolsey,  Cardinal  and  Papal  Legate,2  sufficed  to  enable 
him  to  enforce  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  the 
Cathedral  officials  or  the  administration  of  the  large 
sums  which  came  into  the  treasury  by  way  of  obits 
and  offerings  at  the  shrines.  It  was  well-nigh  impossible 
for  Colet  to  be  successful,  in  spite  of  powerful  support, 
when  his  diocesan  was  hostile  and  his  own  canons 
hardly  recognized  his  right  to  preside  over  their 
Chapter.3 
Although    defeated   and   discouraged,    Colet    never 

"  obviously  against  the  goodwill  of  the  Bishop  "  (Life  of  Colet,  p.  129). 
Warham  had  been  Bishop  of  London  until  1504  and  was  succeeded  by 
William  Barnes,  who  died  in  October,  1505.  The  former  was  a  firm  friend 
of  Colet's,  and  the  latter  was  probably  also  well-disposed  towards  him — 
see  Nichols,  I,  388. 

1  See  Dr.  W.  Sparrow  Simpson,  St.  Paul's  Cathedral  and  old  City  Life, 
London,  1894,  pp.  11 5-8. 

*  Cp.  Wolsey's  own  efforts  in  15 18. — Taunton,  p.  90. 

8  In  the  time  of  Bishop  Sudbury,  the  dispute  that  the  Dean  had  no 
right  to  preside  over  the  Chapter  meetings,  because  he  had  no  seat  in 
that  society,  came  before  him.  He  decided  that  the  Dean  should  always 
have  a  Prebendary's  stall  for  this  purpose. — Milman  (Dean  H.H.), 
Annals  of  St.  Paul's,  London,  1868,  pp.  133-4. 


PREACHING  AT  THE  CATHEDRAL        49 

ceased  to  try  to  better  the  discipline  of  the  Cathedral 
until  he  died.  The  amendments  he  sought  to  introduce 
were  all  in  the  direction  of  higher  virtue  and  greater 
holiness.1  When  he  demanded  high  principles  in  the 
inferiors,  it  was  clear  that  he  expected  remarkable 
spiritual  qualities  in  the  canons  and  superior  officials. 
Nor  do  exalted  conceptions  of  ministerial  duties  come 
strangely  from  one  whose  mind  was  filled  with  Dionysian 
visions  of  the  Christian  Hierarchy.  What  was  unusual 
was  Colet's  thought  that  the  daily  practice  and  life  of 
the  actual  Christian  ministry  ought  to  conform  to  the 
theories  of  the  pseudo-Areopagite.  The  times  were 
rough,  and  the  real  state  of  things  in  the  Church 
differed  considerably  from  the  ideal.  In  fact,  so  great 
was  the  difference,  that  few  ever  seriously  contemplated 
the  possibility  of  the  two  being  brought  into  close 
agreement.  Colet  was  one  of  these  few.2  Those  im- 
mediately affected  by  his  opinions  found  them  trouble- 
some and  subversive.  Hatred  and  resistance  naturally 
followed,  so  that  his  tenure  of  the  deanery  was  one  pro- 
longed conflict  between  the  ideals  of  the  Dean  and  the 
practices  of  the  Cathedral  clergy.3 

Colet  did  not  abandon  the  work  he  had  begun  at 
Oxford.  He,  indeed,  invited  friends  to  preach  in  the 
Cathedral,4  and  probably  also,  he  brought  pressure  to 
bear  upon  that  part  of  the  Cathedral  organization  which 
had  to  do  with  preaching.  The  Chancellor  was  by 
Statute  bound  to  preach,  but  by  means  of  a  quibbling 
interpretation  of  the  wording  of  the  law,  he  had 
omitted,  for  some  considerable  time  before  Colet's 
advent,  to  perform  the  work.5    Bishop  Fitzjames,  in 

1  Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  129-37. 

1  See  Professor  Montagu  Burrows,  op.  cit.,  p.  355. 

3  Dr.  Simpson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  120-1,  108-9. 

4  Such  as  the  Carmelite  John  Sowle  (Knight,  Colet,  p.  62),  and  the 
Scottish  theologian,  Dr.  John  Mayor  or  Major  (Hist.  Reg.  Henrtci 
Septimi  a  Bernardo  Andrea  Tholosate  conscripta,  etc.,  edited  by  Gairdner, 
London,  1858,  pp.  105-6). 

6  Dr.  Lichfield's  excuse  was  that  "  the  Statute  required  him  to  lecture 


50  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

all  likelihood  moved  thereto  by  the  representations  of 
the  Dean,  reminded  Dr.  William  Lichfield,  the  Chan- 
cellor, of  his  duties,  and  decided  that  either  the  Chan- 
cellor or  his  deputy  should  deliver  a  lecture  three  times 
a  week. 

But  Colet  did  not  rely  on  the  labours  of  the  Cathedral 
lecturers  or  of  his  own  friends  and  assistants.  He 
himself  was  a  most  indefatigable  preacher.  On  all 
festivals,  including  Sundays,  he  took  his  place  in  the 
pulpit,  and  expounded  not  a  separate  text  from  the 
Bible,  but  a  large  subject  continued  through  many 
sermons.1  To  fit  himself  for  this  work,  he  had  made 
preparation  long  before,  when  he  studied  the  books  of 
eminent  English  writers  with  a  view  to  the  relinement 
of  his  speech  for  the  delivery  of  Gospel  sermons."  The 
success  of  his  labours  was  proved  by  the  numerous 
auditory  he  always  had.  Many  of  these  were  City 
magnates  and  prominent  officials  of  the  royal  Court. 
One  member  of  the  audience  (Thomas  More)  has  left 
a  record  of  the  effect  produced  upon  himself  by  Colet's 
earnestness  in  preaching  and  the  influence  of  his 
upright  and  evangelical  life. 

More  and  his  friend  Lily,  just  about  this  time,  were 
living  an  ascetic  life  and  meditating  seriously  their 
withdrawal  from  the  world  into  a  monkish  order,  or  at 
least  into  the  priesthood.3  They  had  more  reasons  for 
this  design  than  a  propensity  towards  a  religious  life. 
Thomas  More  had  offended  King  Henry  VII  by  a  bold 

without  cessation  (continue),  and  that  was  an  undertaking  beyond  the 
power  of  man."    See  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  140. 

1  Eras.  0/>.,  III,456d. 

*  Ibid.,  456B  :  "  Habet  gens  Britannica  qui  hoc  praestiterunt  apud 
suos,  quod  Dante  ac  Petrarcha  apud  Italos.  Et  horum  evolvendig 
scriptis  linguam  expolivit,  jam  turn  se  praeparans  ad  praeconium  ser- 
monis  Evangelici." 

3  Tres  Thomae,  seu  Res  Gestae  S.  Thomae  Apostoli,  S.  Thomae 
Archiepiscopi  Cantuariensis  et  Martyris,  Thomae  Mori  Angltae 
quondam  Cancellarii,  Authore  Thoma  Stapletono  Anglo  S.  Theol.  Doc- 
tore,  DVACI,  Ex.  off.  Io.  Bogardi,  1588,  p.  18. 


MORE  AND  COLET  51 

speech  in  the  Parliament  of  1503-4  against  the  demands 
made  by  the  King  through  Dudley  for  excessive  and 
illegal  subsidies.  Soon  after,  on  a  convenient  charge, 
old  Judge  More,  the  father  of  the  rash  young  Member  of 
Parliament,  was  imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  and  Thomas 
More  himself  retired  into  obscurity  as  the  safest  course 
to  take.1  In  his  trouble  he  had  found  an  honest  friend 
in  Colet,  whom  he  had  probably  known  from  childhood, 
and  whom  he  now  viewed  as  his  spiritual  guide  and 
wisest  counseller  in  temporal  matters.  Accordingly, 
he  wrote  a  letter  to  Colet  towards  the  end  of  1504,  when 
the  latter  was  spending  some  time,  by  way  of  vacation, 
in  the  country,  perhaps  at  his  rectory  of  St.  Mary's, 
Dennington,  Suffolk.8  More,  on  the  plea  of  his  own 
benefit  and  that  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  London, 
begged  Colet  to  return  to  the  Cathedral  pulpit.3 

Erasmus,  it  is  true,  had  declined  Colet's  invitation 
to  participate  in  the  work  of  biblical  exposition,  but 
he  had  done  so  on  what  appeared  to  himself  good 
grounds.  A  sense  of  his  own  insufficient  equipment  for 
such  a  work  had  been  the  principal  factor  in  determining 
his  action.  Yet,  during  the  years  that  followed,  he 
did  not  forget  the  promise  he  had  given  to  his  English 
friend.  Five  years  separate  that  letter  of  refusal  and  the 
next  extant  epistle  of  his  to  Colet.  But  an  examination 
of  the  letters  that  he  wrote,  in  the  meanwhile,  to  various 
correspondents  reveals  him  deep  in  studies  which  were 
designed  to  lead  up  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  he 
had  made. 

That  he  had  written  to  Colet  in  this  interval  of  time, 
without  receiving  any  reply,  appears  sufficiently  clear. 
Perhaps  Colet  felt  no  reliance  on  the  promise.     When 

1  Warner  (F.,  LL.D.),  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  with 
the  History  of  Utopia,  London,  1758,  pp.  7-9. 

*  The  Latin  ep.  is  to  be  found  in  Ires  Thomae,  etc.,  Authore  Th. 
Stapletono,  Coloniae  Agrippinae,  1 612,  pp.,  163-5.  See  also  Knight,  Colet, 
pp.  139-44  ;    Seebohm,  p.  149  ;    Lupton,  Colet,  p.  145  ;   Nisard,  pp.  165-6. 

*  Th.19  letter  is  dated  "  10  Cal.  Novembris."  Several  important  con- 
siderations fix  the  year-date  as  1504. 


52  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

everything  is  considered,  it  must  be  admitted  that, 
beyond  the  mere  words  of  that  promise  he  had  nothing 
upon  which  to  found  confidence,  nor  indeed  was  the 
promise  itself  unconditional.  From  whatever  cause 
it  happened,  Colet  sent  no  reply  to  Erasmus. 

Shortly  before  the  former  was  appointed  Dean  of 
St.  Pauls,  on  15th  February,  1504,  Thierry  .Martens, 
of  Antwerp,  had  printed  Erasmus's  Enchiridion  mil  His 
Christiani.1  It  was  a  copy  of  this  little  work  which 
Erasmus  enclosed  with  the  letter  of  congratulation  that 
he  sent  to  the  newly-appointed  Dean  towards  the  end 
of  1504.  From  this  epistle  it  will  be  observed  how 
anxious  Erasmus  was  that  Colet  should  know  he  was 
really  eager  to  devote  himself  to  biblical  labours.2 

It  is  impossible  to  say,  most  excellent  Colet,  with 
what  eagerness  I  am  hastening  to  sacred  literature,3 
how  much  I  dislike  everything  that  draws  me  aside,  or 
even  delays  me.  .   .   . 

Three  years  ago  I  made  an  attempt  on  the  Epistle 
of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans;  I  finished  off  four  books, 
as  it  were  at  one  operation,  purposing  to  continue,  but 
certain  things  drew  me  away,  among  which  the  chief 
was  that  I  constantly  felt  my  need  of  Greek.  So,  for 
nearly  three  years,  Greek  studies  have  almost  entirely 
occupied  my  attention,  and  I  do  not  imagine  that  I 
have  altogether  laboured  in  vain.    .   .    . 

It  is  not  a  little  curious  that  Erasmus  in  this  letter 

1  This  famous  manual  (wbich,  later  on,  was  placed  on  Quiroga's 
Index  prohibit.,  1583)  arose  out  of  a  request  made  by  a  lady  that  Erasmus 
would  use  the  influence  he  possessed  over  her  husband,  an  officer  in 
attendance  upon  the  Princess  of  Veer  at  Tournehem  Castle,  for  his  soul's 
benefit — see  Eras.  Op.,  I,  Praef.  ;  Nichols,  I,  341  ;  Allen,  I,  373.  Eras- 
mus, in  the  preparation  of  the  treatise  for  publication,  was  guided  by  the 
advice  of  John  Vitrier,  a  man  more  than  ordinarily  Christ-like  in  char- 
acter.— Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  90A-B,  and  461E-F.  An  attempt  has  recently 
been  made  to  identify  this  worthv  Franciscan  with  that  Yitrarius,  also 
a  Franciscan,  who  fell  under  the  censure  of  the  Theological  Faculty  of 
Paris,  2nd  October,  1408 — cp.  Allen,  notes  on  Gardianus  and  Praedicator, 
I,  372  and  303,  and  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  54A  and  453B. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  94-96.    Allen,  I,  403,  dates  it  "  c.  Dec.  1504." 

3  "  Quam  velis  eijuiscjue  properem  ad  sacras  Literas." 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM  53 

made  no  reference  to  a  work  on  which  he  must  have 
either  entered  at  the  time,  or,  at  any  rate,  determined 
to  execute.  As  this  was  one  in  which  Colet  would  have 
taken  a  lively  interest,  it  seems  probable  that  Erasmus 
would  have  told  him  if  he  had  actually  begun  it.  A 
suggestion  has,  indeed,  recently  been  put  forward  that, 
assuming  that  Erasmus  had  truly  commenced  the 
undertaking,  he  might  not  have  decided  what  he 
would  do  with  it,  and  for  this  reason  did  not  mention 
it  to  Colet.1  The  work  to  which  we  allude  is  his  edition 
of  the  Annotations  of  Laurentius  Valla  on  the  Latin 
text  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the  previous  summer, 
as  Erasmus  explains  in  the  dedicatory  epistle,2  he 
found  a  copy  of  Valla's  book  in  an  old  library,  and 
thereupon  formed  the  eager  desire  to  edit  it.  Since  the 
book  contained  a  critical  study  of  the  text  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate  in  comparison  with  the  Greek  MSS.,  it  had  not 
been  hitherto  looked  upon  with  favour  by  the  common 
sort  of  theologians.  Erasmus  at  first  dreaded  the 
undertaking,  on  account  of  the  enmity  attached  to  the 
name  of  Laurentius  Valla.  He  foresaw  clearly  enough 
that  any  work  which  attempted  to  alter  the  common 
methods  used  in  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture 
was  liable  to  arouse  the  opposition  of  both  the  Scotists 
and  the  Thomists.  The  scholastic  methods  included 
the  extraction  of  manifold  senses  from  the  Vulgate, 
every  word  of  which  was  regarded  as  inviolable  and 
unalterable.  Valla's  book  clashed  with  these  methods, 
because  it  questioned  the  accuracy  of  the  text. 

Accordingly,  Erasmus  based  his  defence  of  the  Italian 
critic  on  the  proofs  which  he  was  able  to  adduce  that 
Valla  had  been  merely  an  imitator  and  follower  of  St. 
Jerome  himself.  One  passage  in  particular  is  well 
worth  quoting,  because  it  contains  the  vindication  of 

1  Nichols,  I,  380. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  96D.  The  dedica;ion  is  addressed  to  Dr.  Christr. 
Fisher.  Josse  Bade  completed  the  printing  of  the  book  on  the  Ides  of 
April,  1505. 


54  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

all  attempts  to  emend  the  text  of  Scripture.  Here, 
indeed,  Erasmus  briefly  enunciates  for  all  time  the 
raison  d'etre  of  biblical  criticism  : — 

"  But,"  say  they,  "it  is  not  lawful  to  change  anything 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  because  in  them  not  even  the 
dots  are  void  of  mystery."  True,  and  therefore  all  the 
more  unlawful  is  it  to  corrupt  them,  and  all  the  more 
carefully  ought  that  to  be  corrected  by  the  learned 
which  has  been  falsified  through  ignorance.  Yet  in 
this  labour,  there  should  be  exercised  that  circum- 
spection and  prudence  which  are  due  to  all  books,  and 
particularly  to  the  Holy  Bible.1 

When  writing  to  Colet,  Erasmus  had  suggested  to 
him  that  he  should  urge  Lord  Mount  joy  to  assist  his 
former  preceptor.  Colet  apparently  took  the  hint.  At 
any  rate,  shortly  afterwards  Lord  Mount]  oy  sent  a 
pressing  invitation  to  Erasmus  to  come  to  London.* 
In  response,  he  arrived  in  England  about  the  time  of 
the  publication  of  his  edition  of  Valla's  Annotations, 
and  found  a  welcome  in  Lord  Mount]  oy's  house  which 
was  near  St.  Paul's.  Close  around  were  the  friends  he 
had  gained  on  his  first  visit  to  this  country.  Not  only 
Mount] oy  and  Colet,  but  also  Linacre,  Grocyn,  and 
More  were  in  London  at  that  time,  and  lived  not  far 
from  one  another.  And  Erasmus  now  enlarged  the 
circle  of  his  friends  Either  Mount]  oy  or  Colet  intro- 
duced him  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  Dr.  Barnes.  The 
first  two  items  of  Erasmus's  correspondence  which 
belong  to  this  second  English  visit  are  dated  from  the 
Bishop  of  London's  Palace — a  fact  which  probably 
indicates  that  Erasmus  was  temporarily  lodged  there. 
By  means  of  Grocyn's  goodwill,  he  gained  the  valuable 
friendship  of  William  Warham,  who  had  lately  been 
advanced  to  the  archbishopric  of  Canterbury  and  the 
office  of  Lord  Chancellor.  About  this  time  also  he  won 
the  friendly  regard  of  Cuthbert  Tunstall,  and  improved 

1  Ibid.,  Ill,  99A-B. 

*  See  the  ep.  to  Servatius,  ibid.,  III.  1871A. 


ERASMUS'S  SECOND  VISIT  TO  ENGLAND  55 

an  already  existing  acquaintance  with  Bishop  Fox  of 
Winchester.  Dr.  John  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
cousin  of  that  Robert  Fisher  who  had  been  a  pupil  of 
Erasmus  at  Paris  ten  years  before,  now  became  known 
to  the  genial  humanist. 

The  eyes  of  Erasmus  had  been  long  turned  towards 
Italy,  but  the  opportunity  of  journeying  thither  had 
delayed  its  arrival.  However  it  came  at  last.  Baptista 
Boerio,  King  Henry's  Genoese  physician,  wished  his 
two  sons  to  proceed  to  that  country  for  educational 
purposes,  and  asked  Erasmus  to  accompany  them. 
When  the  Dutch  scholar  had  returned  to  Paris,  and  was 
making  his  preparations  for  the  long-desired  journey, 
he  wrote  to  Colet  on  12th  June,1  expressing  his 
mingled  feelings  of  regret  at  parting  from  the  kind 
friends  he  had  recently  gained  in  England  and  of 
pleasure  at  meeting  once  more  those  whom  he  had  left 
behind  in  France. 

In  spite  of  his  expectation  of  an  early  return  to 
England,  a  number  of  years  passed  before  he  saw  these 
shores  again. 

Two  misfortunes  fell  almost  simultaneously  on  Colet. 
He  had  scarcely  begun  the  task  he  had  set  himself  at 
St.  Paul's  when  death  removed  two  powerful  supporters, 
his  friendly  bishop,  Dr.  Barnes,  and  his  father,  Sir 
Henry  Colet. 

Although  the  new  Bishop  was  not  at  first  hostile  to 
the  Dean's  efforts,  yet  he  could  not  altogether  be 
ranked  amongst  those  who  looked  with  favour  upon 
them  ;  and  he  does  not  seem  to  have  had  intimate 
relations  with  any  of  the  members  of  Colet's  circle  of 
friends.  As  time  went  on,  the  persons  most  interested 
in  thwarting  Colet's  plans  sowed  the  seeds  of  dissen- 
sion between  Dr.  Fitzjames  and  him  ;  and  the  Bishop 
discovered,  or  fancied  he  discovered,  reasons  of  his  own 
for  enmity  against  his  Dean. 

His  father  had  been  to  him  a  firm  and  reliable  pro- 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  99. 


56  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

tector.  The  difficulties  with  which,  from  this  time 
forward  lie  had  to  contend,  though  they  might  not 
have  been  altogether  prevented  from  arising  by  the 
gn.it  interest  and  power  of  his  father,  nevertheless 
would  have  been  considerably  lessened  by  the  political 
influence  of  Sir  Henry  Colet.  His  bereavement, 
however,  put  him  in  a  position  to  carry  out  a  project 
he  had  in  mind  for  the  advancement  of  religious 
knowledge.  On  the  death  of  his  father,  Dean  Colet 
inherited  valuable  property.  He  at  once  resolved  to 
devote  it  to  the  cause  of  religion  by  providing  for  the 
education  of  the  young  in  good  learning  and  Christian 
godliness,  in  other  words,  by  founding  a  school  in  which 
these  two  important  things  should  be  equally  incul- 
cated. 

Long  before  and  after  Colet  educational  institutions 
were  established  for  objects  closely  similar  to  those 
prefigured  in  the  Dean's  plans.  Perhaps  it  is  not  un- 
natural that,  in  all  things  that  pertained  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  knowledge,  ancient  traditional  methods  and 
curriculums  should  have  possessed,  during  the  middle 
ages,  undisputed  authority.  But  Colet,  when  he  was 
founding  his  school,  appeared  to  his  contemporaries  to 
be  devising  a  new  thing,  whilst  he  was  being  guided  by 
a  conservative  spirit  much  more  than  they,  and 
perhaps  he  himself  also,  realized.  No  difficulty  need  be 
experienced  in  marking  the  points  in  which  his  school 
was  analogous  to  earlier  institutions.1 

Education  had  experienced  all  the  tyranny  of  arbi- 

1  For  fuller  information,  consult  Lavisse  (Ernest),  Histoire  de  France, 
Paris,  1903,  t.  II,  243-51,  266-70,  342-8;  Guettee  (M.  l'Abbe), 
Histoire  de  V  E.glise  de  France,  Paris,  1856,  t.  Ill,  87-122  ;  West  (A.  F.), 
Alcuin  and  the  Rise  of  the  Christian  Schools,  London,  1893,  pp.  48-58  ; 
Taylor  'Henry  Osborn),  The  Mediaeval  Mind,  London,  191 1,  vol.  I,  chap. 
IV,  and  V,  vol.  II,  book  VII  ;  Monnier  (M.  Francis),  Alcuin  a  (Jnirle- 
magne,  Paris,  1863  ;  Robertson  (Canon  J.  C),  Hist,  of  the  Christian 
Church,  London,  1876,  vol.  Ill,  120-1  :  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France, 
Smith's  trans.,  London  (Whittaker  &  Co.),  s.a.,  vol.  I,  84-7  ;  Draper 
(Dr.  J.  W.),  History  of  the  Intellectual  Development  of  Europe,  New 
York,  1876,  vol.  I,  373-4. 


MEDIEVAL  EDUCATION  57 

trary  limitations  from  the  time  of  Cassian  until  the 
revival  of  classical  learning  known  as  the  Renaissance.1 
At  the  same  time  we  must  not  forget  that  the  great 
churchmen  of  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
had  fought  a  stern  and  protracted  warfare  with  a 
paganism  everywhere  present  and  oftentimes  dominant. 
In  consequence,  though  they  had  derived  no  small 
part  of  their  intellectual  powers  from  pagan  culture, 
they  set  their  faces  against  heathen  literature  because 
they  imagined,  rightly  or  wrongly,  that  it  tended  to  the 
preservation  of  the  pagan  spirit.2  That  battle  was  not 
ended  when  the  Empire  fell,  but  the  antagonistic 
attitude  of  the  Christian  Church  continued  in  force 
even  after  all  fear  of  a  revival  of  paganism  had  passed 
away.  The  Goths  and  Franks  set  no  value  on  the 
literature  or  culture  of  the  Romans  they  overcame  ; 
the  Church  which  henceforth  became  the  guardian  of 
learning  only  cared  for  so  much  of  it  as  had  direct 
connection  with  the  services  of  religion.  Accordingly, 
the  course  of  study  to  which  the  monasteries  and  the 
cathedral  schools  were  restricted  was  a  very  narrow 
one.  Such  as  it  was,  however,  it  formed  the  only  basis 
of  education  from  the  fall  of  the  Empire  until  the 
establishment  of  the  Universities  in  the  thirteenth 
century.  Even  then,  although  the  University  un- 
doubtedly did  noble  service  in  the  cause,  it  was  always 
shackled  with  the  traditionally  hostile  attitude  of  the 
Church  towards  the  classics  of  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome.  The  Renaissance,  at  whatever  period  it  arose 
in  the  several  nations  of  western  Europe,  found  its 
champions  and  its  home  amidst  the  Colleges  and  Halls 
of  the  Universities.  But  it  never  was  an  unchallenged 
guest  there,  it  never  received  the  official  sanction  of  the 
University  authorities.    This  is  easily  accounted  for  by 

1  Mullinger  (J.  B.),  The  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great,  London,  1877,  p. 

1  Mullincer  (J.  B.),  The  University  of  Cambridge  to  the  Royal  Injunc- 
tions of  1535,  Camb.  Univ.  Press,  1873,  P-  7- 


58  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

what  has  been  already  said.  The  hostility  it  met  with, 
in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  at  the  hands  of 
the  entire  ecclesiastical  party,  and  the  open  indifference, 
or  positive  dislike,  which  very  many  of  the  reformers, 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  displayed  towards  it,  must  be 
noted  as  in  no  sense  the  fault  of  these  men  ;  they 
simply  could  not  overcome  in  themselves  the  pre- 
judices which  they  had  inherited  from  St.  Augustine 
of  Hippo  and  Cassian,  or  unlearn  the  lessons  their 
spiritual  forefathers  for  so  many  centuries  back  had 
been  teaching. 

Wherever  the  northern  races  had  settled  ignorance 
of  the  most  pronounced  type  prevailed,  amongst  not 
only  the  Christian  laity  but  the  secular  clergy  also. 
The  inevitable  results  followed  :  by  the  time  of  the 
Carolingians  the  former  became  corrupt  in  morals,  and 
the  latter  lost  all  sense  of  their  spiritual  responsibilities.1 

To  correct  these  evils,  Charles  the  Great  (better 
known,  perhaps,  as  Charlemagne),  amid  his  busy  life  in 
camp  and  court,  prosecuted  with  zeal  and  determina- 
tion the  splendid  work  of  conducting  an  ecclesiastical 
reformation  by  means  of  education.  His  enactments 
to  this  end  sought  to  enforce  a  certain  amount  of 
instruction  upon  both  laity  and  clergy.2  He  also  tried 
to  improve  the  condition  of  religion  by  raising  the 
status  of  ecclesiastics,  and  by  correcting  the  laxities 
of  discipline  in  monasteries  and  amongst  the  clergy.8 
Councils,  moreover,  swayed  by  the  determination  of  the 
Emperor,  enacted  various  decrees  which  embodied  his 
wishes,4  and  some  of  the  bishops  cordially  seconded 

1  Mullinger,  Sch.  of  Ch.  the  Gt.,  p.  37,  et  seq. 

8  See  his  Capitulary  of  787,  ibid.,  pp.  97-8  ;  Rashdall,  I,  28-9 ; 
Baluzius  (Stephanus,  Tutelensis),  Capitularia  Regum  Francorum,  etc., 
Paris,  1677,  torn,  prim.,  201-204,  epistle  addressed  to  Baugulf,  Abbot 
of  Fulda  ;  Lavisse,  Hist,  de  France,  II,  342-348. 

8  Mullinger,  Sch.  of  Ch.  the  Gt.,  pp.  101-2 ;  Baluzius,  I,  261-72, 
357-60,  and  361-76. 

'Council  of  Aries  (813),  canon  19;  Council  of  Mentz,  canon  45 — 
Sacrosancta    Concilia    ad   regiam    editionem    exacta  .  .  .  studio    Phil. 


ALCUIN'S  EDUCATIONAL  PROJECTS       59 

Charles's  efforts  by  promoting  education  within  their 
jurisdictions.  Of  these,  Theodulf,  Bishop  of  Orleans, 
proved  himself  to  be  possessed  of  a  marvellously  wise 
discernment,  in  some  respects  far  in  advance  of  the 
age  in  which  he  lived.1 

But  it  was  under  Alcuin,*  the  British  teacher  from 
York,  that  the  most  notable  projects  for  the  encourage- 
ment of  learning  were  formed. 

The  main  feature  of  the  educational  schemes  initiated 
by  Alcuin  was  the  pre-eminence  of  sacred  studies.' 
No  better  course  probably  could  have  been  devised 
than  to  attempt  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  that  time 
by  means  of  the  elevation  of  public  and  private  morality 
and  the  restoration  of  religion.  Yet  the  character  of 
his  designs  was  too  ecclesiastical  for  the  general  purposes 
of  human  life,  and,  besides,  conspired  to  strengthen 
the  bonds  in  which  ecclesiasticism  held  for  many 
centuries  all  exercise  of  mental  powers.  Thus,  Alcuin's 
influence  manifested  at  the  same  time  reactionary  and 
progressive  tendencies. 

Of  all  his  pupils  none  displayed  more  perfectly  the 
direction  of  the  master's  efforts  than  Lewis  the  Pious, 
the  successor  of  Charles  the  Great.  Such  capitularies 
as  he  published,  during  his  reign,  on  the  subject  of 
education — and  they  were  numerous — viewed  it  solely 
from  the  ecclesiastical  standpoint.4     It  has,  however, 

Labbei  &  Gabr.  Cossartii,  S.  J.  presbyterorum,  Lutetiae  Parisiorum,  1671, 
torn.  VII,  1238,  1251  ;  Binius  (Sev.),  Concilia  Generalia  et  Provincialia 
Graeca  et  Latina,  Paris,  1636,  VI,  214,  229. 

1  In  797,  he  issued  to  his  clergy  a  Capitulary,  in  which  he  not  only 
propounded  a  lofty  ideal  of  study,  but  enjoined  the  establishment,  of 
every  town  and  village  in  the  diocese,  of  schools  where  "  the  children  in 
the  faithful  "  should  be  taught  free  of  charge. — Labb.  et  Coss.,  VII,  1 140. 

2  Guettee,  III,  92,  says  this  renowned  teacher's  name  ought  to  be 
written  Alkwin.  The  usual  form  is,  however,  adhered  to  here.  Later  on 
in  life,  Alcuin  himself  assumed  Albinus  as  a  Romanized  form  of  his  name, 
to  which  he  added  Flaccus. 

'Mullinger,  Sch.  of  Ch.  the  Gt.,  pp.  110-3. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  128  et  seq.  ;  Labb.  &  Coss.,  VII,  1534  ;  Baluzius,  I,  634, 
"37- 


60  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

to  be  '-'-marked  that  the  measures  enjoined  by  him  were 
of  a^  enlightened  kind  and  do  honour  to  his  judgment.1 
I  ofortunately  the  revolt  of  Lewis's  sons  and  the 
civil  wars  consequent  thereon  swept  away  most  of  the 
results  of  Alcuin's  labours.2  Nevertheless,  the  impulse 
given,  during  the  closing  years  of  the  eighth  century 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  ninth,  never  entirely  lost  its 
force,  but  survived  in  the  improved  condition  of  the 
cathedral  and  monastic  schools.3  In  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  pursuit  of  knowledge  thus  continued  to  rest 
exclusively  in  clerical  hands,  it  was  out  of  the  begin- 
nings at  that  period  made  that  the  greatest  agency  for 
the  diffusion  of  knowledge  in  modern  times  was 
eventually  developed.  From  the  cathedral  schools 
of  Carolingian  days  has  sprung  the  University  system, 
and  herein  lies  the  explanation  of  the  essentially 
ecclesiastical  character  of  the  University,  at  any  rate 
in  northern  Europe,  during  the  middle  ages.4  True, 
the  Universities  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 
turies strove  to  attain  freedom  from  ecclesiastical 
control.  Sometimes,  a  brief  period  of  liberty  rewarded 
their  efforts,  as,  for  instance,  at  Oxford  in  the  fourteenth 
century.  But  they  invariably  fell  back  again,  and  that 
more  completely,  into  the  fetters  out  of  which  they  had 
struggled.  Nor  is  there  here  any  cause  for  astonish- 
ment. In  those  same  fetters  the  University  system  has 
been  born.    Accordingly,  the  justest  estimate  of  Oxford 

1  One  estimable  instance  of  his  piety  and  wisdom  v.  as  the  order  he 
issued  for  the  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  the  vernacular 
of  his  time,  the  lingua  teudisca. — Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  130. 

2  The  foundation  of  three  lar^e  public  schools — a  remarkable  anticipa- 
tion of  a  later  movement —  was  actually  about  to  be  accomplished,  when 
the  civil  wars  broke  out  and  frustrated  the  enterprise. — Labb.  et  Coss., 
VII,  1663. 

3  .Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Comb.,  p.  19 ;  Bulaeus  (Caesar  F.gassius).  I/istoria 
Universitatxs  Parisiensis,  Parisiie,  1 665-1 673,  I,  79-83  :  De  Scho'.is 
Coenobialtbus  et  Episcopalibus,  and  (ibid.,  91-100)  De  lnstitutione  sen 
htindatwne  Univ.  Paris. 

*  Rashdall,  I,  28-30. 


FOUNDATION  OF  COLET'S  SCHOOL        61 

University  in  Colet's  time  is  that  it  was  nothing  else 
than  an  overgrown  cathedral  or  monastic  school. 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Carolingian  regulations,  the 
later  movement  towards  religious  reform  included 
efforts  for  the  improvement  of  education.  The  latter 
half  of  the  fifteenth  century,  therefore,  witnessed  in 
England  a  rapidly  increasing  propensity  towards  the 
founding  of  public  schools.  But  there  were  many 
difficulties  to  be  overcome,  for  suspicion  had  in  previous 
generations  attached  to  the  whole  educational  system 
of  the  country  the  stigma  of  propagating  heresy. 
In  consequence  of  this  the  profession  of  teacher  had  been 
abandoned  as  too  liable  to  incur  the  repressive  measures 
directed  against  Lollardism ; x  even  when  the  new 
tendency  began  to  display  itself,  from  143 1  onwards, 
by  the  opening  of  new  schools,  though  scholars  were 
vastly  numerous,  teachers  were  few.2 

Amongst  the  schools  in  London  when  Colet  became 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  there  existed  one  belonging  to  the 
Cathedral  itself.  What  seems  the  obvious  course  for 
the  Dean  to  have  taken,  in  his  anxiety  to  promote 
education,  would  have  been  to  revive  and  extend  the 
school  which  was  connected  with  the  corporation  of 
which  he  was  the  head.3  Serious  hindrances,  however, 
stood  in  the  way  of  such  a  proposition.  In  northern 
Europe,  from  originally  being  the  administrator  of  the 
schools  of  the  clergy,  the  Chancellor  had,  in  the  process 
of  time,  arrived  at  the  entire  superintendence  of  educa- 
tion in  the  diocese.4    But  in  the  diocese  of  London  the 

1  Mullingcr,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  p.  349.     2  Rashdall,  II,  chap.  XII,  sect.  9. 

3  A  correspondence  appeared  in  The  Times  of  May,  1902,  relative  to 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  present  school  of  St.  Paul's  is  to  be 
regarded  as  the  direct  descendant  of  the  ancient  cathedral  school.  Mr. 
Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  154  et  seq.,  has  very  fully  and  ably  discussed  the  whole 
question,  and  has  traced  the  history  of  the  cathedral  school  to  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

4  Mullinger,  Sch.  of  Ch.  the  Gr.,  pp.  130-1  ;  Statutes,  etc.,  of  the  Cathe- 
dral (.hurch  of  Tork  (2nd  edit.,  Leeds,  1900),  p.  6. 

According  to  Bulaeus,  I,  82,  the  head  of  the  monastic  and  cathedral 
schools,  in  ancient  times,  was  called  "  alibi  Decanus  vel  Cancellarius." 


6a  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

Chancellor  was  limited  to  the  supervision  of  education 
in  the  city  alone,  and  even  there  some  exemptions  from 
his  authority  existed.1  Dr.  William  Lichfield  united 
in  his  own  person  the  offices  of  Chancellor  of  St.  Paul's 
and  Master  of  the  Schools,  as  well  as  that  of  Divinity 
Lecturer.  That  dignitary  was  scarcely  the  man  to  exert 
himself  in  the  cause  of  learning  who  had  neglected  the 
very  duties  incumbent  upon  the  sacred  offices  he  held. 
Apart  from  the  Chancellor,  however,  it  is  still  very 
questionable  whether  the  Dean  entertained  a  high 
enough  opinion  of  the  possibilities  of  a  school  so  com- 
pletely under  ecclesiastical  domination  as  the  Cathedral 
grammar-school  to  have  seriously  meditated  such  a 
course.  The  school  he  created  he  removed  as  far  as  he 
was  able  from  ecclesiastical  control. 

Possibly  the  year  1509  may  be  taken  as  that  in  which 
Colet  put  his  plans  into  operation.2  So  intensely  earnest 
was  he  in  this  project  that  he  devoted  almost  his  entire 
patrimony  to  it.3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  involved  an 
outlay  of  about  £4,500,  a  large  sum  in  those  days, 
representing  over  £50,000  in  ours. 

Colet  dedicated  the  school  to  the  Child  Jesus,  an 
image  of  Whom  stood  over  the  High-Master's  chair. 
The  scholars  were  required  daily  to  salute  the  Holy 
Child  with  a  hymn  at  the  opening  and  closing  of  the 
school.  He  limited  the  number  of  pupils  to  153,  on 
what  ground  has  never  been  satisfactorily  explained.' 

For  the  task  of  instructing  these  boys  he  appointed 
two  teachers,  the  High-Master  and  the  Sur-Master, 
and  also  a  chaplain,  to  whom  he  allocated  emoluments 
which,  judged  by  the  standard  of  the  times,  were 
unquestionably  generous.1 

1  Simpson  (Dr.  W.  Sparrow),  Chapters  in  the  History  of  Old  St.  Paul's, 
London,  1 88 1 ,  pp.  31,  48,  49. 

2  Colet  himself  gives  1512  a9  the  date  of  the  foundation. — Lupton, 
Colet,  App.  A.,  and  Knight,  Colet,  Misc.  No.  V.  Probably  he  meant 
that  the  work  of  foundation  was  completed  in  this  year. 

•  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  457B  ;  Pol.  Verg.,  Anglic ae  hist.,  p.  618. 

4  Cp.  Knight,  Colet,  Misc.  No.  V,  and  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  166. 

•  Seebohm,  Oxf.  Rej.,  p.  219. 


SCHOOL  BOOKS  63 

The  pains  which  Colet  took  to  demand  qualities  of 
not  only  intellect  and  efficiency  in  these  officials,  but 
also  virtue,  piety,  honourable  conduct,  and  steadfast 
adherence  to  the  conscientious  discharge  of  their 
functions,  illustrate,  no  less  completely  than  the  express 
words  of  his  Statutes,  the  object  he  had  in  view  when 
he  established  this  institution.  Nor  did  he  cease  during 
his  lifetime  to  manifest  the  same  intense  pre-occupation 
in  its  welfare.  For  example,  he  frequently  conjured 
his  friends  to  apply  their  talents  to  assist  him  in  better- 
ing his  project.  Thus,  at  one  time,  he  was  desirous  of 
school  books,  for  he  felt  dissatisfied  at  the  prospect  of 
adopting  as  the  basis  of  instruction  in  his  school  the 
somewhat  antiquated  manuals  in  use  elsewhere.1 
Accordingly,  to  comply  with  his  desire,  Erasmus  pro- 
duced two  works  specially  composed  for  the  Coletine 
school,  the  Institutum  Christiani  Hominis  and  the 
Copia  Verborum.2  At  another  time  we  hear  of  a  certain 
grammar  which  Linacre  was  induced  to  write  for  a  like 
purpose,  but  this  book  was  found  to  be  too  elaborate 
for  the  pupils.3 

How  far  Colet  was  subject  to  the  ideals  of  his  con- 
temporaries, in  spite  of  that  "  spirit  of  prophetic 
liberality  "  with  which  he  has  been  justly  credited  for 
a  remarkable  provision  he  made  for  the  administration 
of  his  school  ;*  how  far  he  was  governed,  in  spite  of  the 
bold  initiatives  he  took  at  Oxford  and  in  London,  by 
the  spirit  of  the  preceding  ages  and  the  conservative 

1  A  feeling  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  defects  of  existing  grammar- 
books  had  truly  come  to  be  a  sign  of  the  tendency  of  the  age. — Rashdall, 
II,  515.    Cp.  Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  23-5. 

*  Catalogue  of  Lucubrations,  Eras.  Op.,  I,  2.  For  the  Institutum 
consult  Eras.  Op.,  torn.  V,  and  for  the  Copia,  torn.  I. 

8  Colet  himself  compiled  a  text-book  for  his  scholars  which  he  called 
Rudtmenta  Grammatices.  Cardl.  Wolsey,  when  making  arrangements  for 
the  school  he  had  founded  at  Ipswich,  adopted  Colet's  little  book  for  its 
use. 

*  Admitting  his  inability  to  provide  for  all  the  contingencies  that  might 
arise  in  time  to  come,  Colet  left  the  whole  future  arrangement  to  the 
conscientious  labours  of  the  Mercers. — Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  p.  472. 


64  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

notions  prevalent  in  his  time,  will  be  best  comprehended 
from  his  attitude  towards  the  literature  he  indicated  as 
the  standard  course  for  his  beneficiaries.  He  desired 
the  pupils  to  be  first  of  all  grounded  in  religion  and 
Latin  grammar,  then  to  study  the  two  Erasmian  books, 
and  after  these  to  read  such  authors  as  Lactantius, 
Prudentius,  Proba,  Sedulius,  Juvencus,  and  Baptista 
Mantuanus.  His  list  would  excite  surprise  if  it  were  not 
remembered  that  his  object  in  founding  the  school,  by 
his  own  confession,  was  "  specially  to  increase  know- 
ledge and  worshipping  of  God  and  our  Lord  Christ  Jcsu, 
and  good  Christian  life  and  manners  in  the  children." 
The  end  he  had  in  view  when  he  drew  up  his  list  of 
authors  he  thus  explains  : — 

All  barbary  all  corrupcion  all  laten  adulterate 
which  ignorant  blynde  folis  brought  into  this  worlde 
and  with  the  same  hath  distayned  and  poysenyd  the 
olde  laten  spech  and  the  varay  Romayne  tong  which 
in  the  tyme  of  Tully  and  Salust  and  Virgill  and 
Terence  was  vsed,  whiche  also  seint  Jerome  and  seint 
ambrose  and  seint  Austen  and  many  hooly  doctors 
lernyd  in  theyr  tymes.  I  say  that  ffylthynesse  and  all 
such  abusyon  which  the  later  blynde  worlde  brought 
in  which  more  ratheyr  may  be  callid  blotterature 
thenne  litterature  I  vtterly  abbanysh  and  Exclude 
oute  of  this  scole  and  charge  the  Maisters  that  they 
teche  all  way  that  is  the  best  and  instruct  the  chyldren 
in  greke  and  Redyng  vnto  them  suych  auctours  that 
hathe  with  wisdome  joyned  the  pure  chaste 
eloquence.1 

No  doubt  this  outburst  of  Colet's  indignation  against 
"  blotterature  "  can  be  assigned  to  the  dislike  he  bore 
to  the  scholastic  philosophy  of  his  day  and  the  wretched 
jargon  employed  for  its  expression.  And  it  may  be 
added  that  this  indignation  was  kindled  into  a  fierce 
flame  by  his  abhorrence  of  the  coarseness  and  impurity 
of  another  type  of  the  literature  most  praised  in  his 
time — that  of  the  classical  authors  of  the  post- Augustan 

1  Lupton,  Colet,  App.  A. 


COLET'S  EDUCATIONAL  IDEALS  65 

age  and  of  their  imitators  among  the  humanists.1  For 
all  that,  a  consideration  of  the  list  of  authors  he  drew 
up  will  convince  anyone  that  Colet  in  this  performance 
was  largely  influenced  by  the  educational  ideals  of  the 
preceding  centuries.  His  list,  in  fact,  and  his  reasons 
for  it,  are  perfectly  analogous  to  those  of  Gregory  the 
Great  and  Alcuin.  The  character  of  Colet  is,  indeed,  not 
without  its  parallels  to  that  of  each  of  these  bygone 
worthies ;  his  plans  were  not  altogether  unlike  theirs, 
and  consequently  there  is  nothing  to  be  amazed  at  if 
the  means  he  adopted  for  prosecuting  those  plans  were 
not  dissimilar  either.  Doubtless,  it  will  always  provide 
ground  for  remark  that  one  so  gifted  with  the  power  of 
initiative  and  so  capable  in  pursuing  undauntedly  new 
paths  towards  reform,  should  have  actually  embodied 
in  the  rules  of  instruction  for  his  newly  founded 
institution  the  narrow  spirit  which  had  hitherto 
dominated,  to  his  hurt,  the  whole  empire  of  literature 
and  knowledge.  But  even  great  men — great  dis- 
coverers, great  inventors,  great  innovators  of  what- 
ever kind — are,  after  all,  the  creatures  of  their  epoch, 
and,  though  they  conspire  to  advance  the  human  race 
in  some  few  particulars,  for  the  rest,  they  leave  the 
world  much  as  they  found  it.  That  may  be  regarded 
as  the  law  of  human  endeavour  :  each  great  man  has 
his  own  department  wherein,  and  wherein  alone,  he  is 
great — in  all  else  he  is  as  another.  Colet,  the  great 
religious  teacher,  the  great  pioneer  of  peaceful  reform, 
when  he  came  to  the  details  of  an  educational  system, 
followed  exactly  in  the  foot-tracks  already  deeply  worn 
by  the  passage  of  the  educationists  of  the  previous 
thousand  years.  One  looks  to  him  in  vain  for  a  sym- 
pathetic appreciation  of  the  best  works  of  the  Golden 
Age  of  either  Rome  or  Athens.  He  was  no  humanist. 
Lactantius  and  Baptista  Mantuanus  represented  his 

1  He  may,  perhaps,  have  also  meant  to  condemn  the  uses  to  which  the 
Latin  language  was  put  by  the  humanists,  such  as  Poggio,  Filelfo, 
Beccadelli,  and  others.  For  these,  see  Symonds,  Rev.  of  Learn,  in  Italy, 
pp.  235-6,  256,  520. 


66  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

highest  ideal  of  Latinity,  because,  in  point  of  fact, 
his  aims  were  not  literary  but  religious.  He  might  not, 
as  Alcuin  in  his  later  years,  have  been  ashamed  of  his 
Virgil,1  but,  nevertheless,  the  thought  of  the  Carolingian 
teacher  was  none  the  less  really  present  in  the  mind  of 
the  sixteenth  century  Dean  of  St.  Paul's. 

The  entire  administration  of  the  school  and  its  endow- 
ments, Colet  committed  to  the  Honourable  Company 
of  Mercers  of  London.  This  course  he  took  only  after 
much  anxious  consideration. 

There  is  nothing,  said  he,  certain  in  human  affairs, 
yet  he  found  less  corruption  amongst  married  citizens 
of  worthy  repute,  such  as  the  Company  of  Mercers, 
than  amongst  any  other  class  of  men,  not  excepting 
the  clergy.2 

The  Dean  was  fortunate  in  securing  William  Lily  as 
the  first  High-Master  of  the  school.  This  god-son  of 
Grocyn's  had  travelled  much  in  the  East  after  his 
course  at  Oxford  had  concluded,  and  had  there  studied 
Greek  to  such  good  purpose  that  on  his  return  to 
England  he  formed  one  of  a  triumvirate  of  profoundly 
learned  Grecians,  of  whom  Grocyn  and  Linacre  were 
the  other  members.3  Lily,  when  a  young  man,  had 
had,  with  his  friend  Thomas  More,  some  inclination 
towards  a  monastic  life.  But  he  had  followed  that 
friend's  example  and  married,  and  had  opened  a  private 
school  in  London — an  enterprise  which  proved  a  great 
success. 

Colet's  institution  thus  entered  on  its  existence  under 
favourable  auspices.     It  received  the  hearty  approba- 

1  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  p.  17. 

2  "  Reditibus  totique  negotio  praefecit  non  sacerdotes,  non  Episco- 
pum,  aut  capitulum  ut  vocant,  non  magnates,  sed  cives  aliquot  conjuga- 
tes, probatae  famae.  Roganti  causam  ait,  nihil  quidem  esse  certi  In 
rebus  humanis,  sed  tamen  in  his  se  minimum  invenire  corruptelae." — 
Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  457E. 

3  Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  170-1. 


FOUNDATIONS  BY  FISHER  AND  FOX      67 

tion  of  all  lovers  of  learning,1  and  of  all  those  who  hoped 
for  a  reform  in  religion  quietly  and  successfully  con- 
ducted by  means  of  education.  The  circumstances 
which  attended  its  foundation,  that  is  to  say,  its  ample 
endowments  ;  its  establishment  by  an  eminent  ecclesi- 
astic, who  nevertheless  deliberately  arranged  for  its 
exemption  from  all  ecclesiastical  interference;  the 
occupancy  of  its  mastership  by  one  of  the  most  brilliant 
scholars  of  the  period  ;  and,  in  addition,  that  novel 
provision  for  its  future  management  which  has  excited 
admiration  in  our  days — all  these  united  to  confer 
distinction  upon  the  school  from  the  time  of  its 
origination. 

But,  indeed,  Colet's  scheme,  marked  though  it  was 
by  exceptional  characteristics,  did  not  long  stand  alone  ; 
it  served,  like  his  other  works  in  that  age,  as  a  pioneer. 
For,  just  as  his  labours  in  lecturing  on  the  Bible  at 
Oxford  were  succeeded  by  similar  efforts,  not  only  at 
that  University,  but  also  at  Cambridge  and  elsewhere, 
so  his  educational  projects  were  closely  followed  by  a 
succession  of  endeavours  directed  to  a  similar  end.  After 
Colet's  distinctive  initiation  of  constructing  education 
upon  a  religious  basis,  all  benefactors  who  had  the 
cause  of  religion  at  heart,  followed  his  lead.  In  the 
regulations  made  by  Bishop  Fisher  for  the  foundation 
of  the  College  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist  at  Cambridge, 
and  by  Bishop  Fox  for  the  foundation  of  that  of  Corpus 
Christi  at  Oxford  (both  in  1516),  we  observe  a  like 
emphasis  laid  upon  the  expediency  of  imparting 
religious  teaching  to  the  students  in  the  vernacular  as 
we  have  seen  Colet  had  already  put  in  the  rules  for  his 
school.2  A  few  years  later,  Cardinal  Wolsey  endeavoured 
to  introduce  beneficial  changes,  for  which  he  adopted 

1  Erasmus,  Op.,  Ill,  457D,  thus  expresses  his  opinion  :  "  Vidit  illud 
vir  perspicacissimus,  in  hoc  esse  praecipuam  Reipublicae  spem,  si  prima 
aetas  bonis  rationibus  institueretur." 

2  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  pp.  472,  522  ;  Baily  (Dr.  Thomas),  Life 
and  Death  of  that  renowned  John  Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  London, 
1655, pp.  11,  12,  15. 


68  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

the  higher  education  of  the  clergy  and  the  general 
encouragement  of  learning,  secular  and  religious,  as 
the  foundation.1  These  are  only  a  few  representatives 
of  the  great  body  of  eminent  men  of  that  epoch,  chiefly 
ecclesiastics,  who,  moved  by  the  degenerate  state  of 
religious  ideals  and  beliefs,  sought  to  repair  the  evil  by 
promoting  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Christian 
Faith. 

Institutions  for  the  advancement  of  learning  were 
frequently  accompanied  or  followed  by  the  composition 
of  works  on  the  theory  of  education.  Thus,  Erasmus 
did  what  he  could  to  assist  Colet  in  carrying  out  his 
plans,  and  formulated  schemes  of  religious  instruction. 
The  holy  Bishop  of  Carpentras  in  France,  Cardinal 
Sadolet,  in  a  subsequent  decade,  laboured  to  impart 
what  he  considered  a  wholesome  understanding  of 
Holy  Scripture,  and  tried  to  raise  the  spiritual  condi- 
tion of  the  Christians  not  only  of  his  own  diocese 
but  throughout  western  Europe.8  He  also  has  left  to 
posterity  among  his  numerous  writings  one  that  is 
accounted  his  chef  d'ceuvre,  in  which  he  displays  his  own 
opinions  on  the  art  of  education.8  Of  both  Erasmus 
and  Sadolet  it  has  to  be  noted  that  they  approached 
the  question  from  the  humanistic  standpoint.  Indeed, 
Sadolet's  treatise  can  be  fittingly  enough  described  as 
a  work  devised  in  the  spirit  of  Marcus  Aurelius  but 
expressed  in  terms  of  Christianity  ;  for  the  illustration 
of  the  noble  models  of  perfection  he  portrays  the  worthy 
Cardinal  does  not,  in  a  solitary  instance,  cite  a  Scrip- 
tural personage  :  he  appears  to  know  of  no  heroes  save 
those  of  classical  antiquity.* 

1  Taunton,  Wolsey,  p.  66. 

2  Charpenne  (P.),  Traite  cT  Education  du  Cardinal  Sadolet  et  Vie  de 
Vauteur  par  Antoine  Florebelli  (Latin  text  with  French  translation), 
Paris,  1855,  pp.  34-9,  345-6. 

3  Jacobi  Sadoleti,  De  Liberis  recti  instituendis  Liber,  for  which  consult 
Charpenne. 

4  Perhaps  this  circumstance  may  be  explained  by  the  necessary  exer- 
cise of  caution  in  those  times  (nearly  a  generation  later  than  Colet), 


ERASMUS'S  "PRAISE  OF  FOLLY"  69 

Education1  was  not  the  only  measure,  in  that  age, 
which  had  for  its  object  the  betterment  of  religion. 
There  were  at  hand  other  instruments  of  a  different 
quality,  negative  in  their  tendencies,  destructive  in 
their  results.  Of  these  the  most  powerful  was  Satire. 
The  era  to  which  Colet's  constructive  effort  belonged  is 
that  in  which  there  also  appeared  a  book  still  famous  and 
well  known — Erasmus's  Encomium  Moriae  (The  Praise 
of  Folly).  That  this  work  played  a  certain  distinguished 
part  in  the  drama  which  was  gradually  unfolding  itself 
is  undeniable  ;  but  it  must  not  be  reckoned  the  first 
of  its  kind  chronologically,  however  pre-eminent  it  be 
in  power.  Sebastian  Brant  had  already,  in  1494,  pro- 
duced the  Narrenschiff  (The  Ship  of  Fools),  of  which  the 
main  idea  was  to  represent  the  failings,  the  abuses,  in 
Church  and  State,  and  the  iniquities  of  that  genera- 
tion, as  the  follies  of  mankind.2  Brant,  it  is  true,  holds 
up  the  sinner,  the  cheat,  and  the  dolt  to  ridicule,  and 
does  this  in  a  way  which  displays  a  pungent  and  ob- 
servant wit,  yet  he  fails  to  work  out  his  conception  in 
a  complete  form,  and,  consequently,  fails  also  to 
suggest  any  thought  of  correction  or  amendment.  The 
Narrenschiff,  therefore,  fulfils  to  some  extent  the  office 
of  a  mirror  to  Brant's  contemporaries.  It  serves  no 
other  purpose.  Like  a  mirror,  it  confines  its  duty  to  the 
simple  portrayal  of  present  appearances.    Such  a  book, 

when  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  Bible  made  a  Christian  liable  to  incur 
the  reproach,  if  not  also  the  penalties,  of  heresy — see  his  letter  to  Fregoso, 
Archbishop  of  Salerno,  in  May,  1536,  Jacobi  Sadolcti,  Episcopi  Carpen- 
toracti,  Epistolarum  Libri  Sexdecim,  Coloniae,  1567,  p.  124.  But  no  one 
could  place  greater  importance  on  biblical  studies  than  he  did  ;  he  was 
constantly  in  the  habit  of  urging  them  upon  his  friends  and  correspon- 
dents as  "  omnis  nostra  salus,  omnis  beatae  et  immortalis  vitae  spes." — 
£/>p.,pp.  219,  341,394,  etc. 

1  It  may  not  be  without  interest  to  notice,  with  reference  to  the  con- 
nection between  plans  of  reform  and  instruction,  that  Strasburg  became, 
as  early  as  1524,  the  seat  of  an  educational  institution  which  conferred 
no  small  amount  of  prestige  and  strength  upon  the  reformers  in  that  city. 
— See  Herminjard,  1,407,433  note  II. 

2Crrighton,  VI,  13-6. 


70     •     COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

after  the  first  laugh  has  passed  away,  usually  vanishes 
into  oblivion,  for  the  most  part  of  mankind,  and  the 
work  he  composed  would'probably  be  unknown  to-day 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  subsequent  production  of  a 
class  of  literature  of  which  the  Narrenschiff  was  in 
fact  the  prototype. 

Although  Erasmus  may  have  owed  something  to 
Brant  as  regarded  the  form  of  the  Encomium  Moriae, 
the  thought,  the  idea,  that  suggested  its  composition 
appears  to  have  been  quite  spontaneous.  Erasmus  was 
returning,  in  June  1509,  from  Rome  to  England,  and 
no  doubt  on  the  journey  his  mind  dwelt  frequently  upon 
the  person  for  whose  house  in  London  he  was  bound — 
Thomas  More.1  The  name  More  was  so  akin  in  sound  to 
the  Greek  word  Moria  (Folly)  that  it  was  easy  to  pass 
from  one  to  the  other,  and  the  further  transition  from 
Folly  to  the  innumerable  "  follies  "  which  he  had  wit- 
nessed in  his  travels  through  the  world  was  but  a  short 
step.  Thereupon,  his  meditations  took  concrete  form, 
and  when  he  had  reached  More's  house,2  he  wrote  in 
about  a  week  a  book  which  has  always  been  held  to 
represent  the  grave  dissatisfaction  of  Erasmus  himself 
with  the  blatant  defects  of  contemporary  life.  No  one 
who  gazes  upon  Holbein's  portrait  of  him  can  escape 
the  reminder  administered  by  the  wide  mouth,  thin  lips, 
sharp  nose,  and  half-closed  eyes,  that  this  is  indeed  the 
author  of  the  Praise  of  Folly.  Holbein,  in  short,  has  pre- 
sented to  the  human  race  a  picture  of  Erasmus  the  satirist 
rather  than  that  of  Erasmus  the  eminent  theologian. 

Between  the  time  when  he  left  England  in  company 
with  the  young  Boeri  for  the  journey  into  Italy  (1506), 
and  his  return  to  this  country,  the  Dutch  scholar  had 
visited  in  succession  Turin  (where  the  D.D.  was  con- 
ferred upon  him),  Florence,  Bologna,  Venice,  Padua, 
and  Rome.3 

1  In  his  Dedication,  Erasmus  states  that  this  was  the  origin  of  the 
book.  2  Seebohm,  p.  194. 

1  For  this  part  of  Erasmus's  life,  consult  Pierre  de  Nolhac,  Erasme  en 


ORIGIN  OF  "THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY"     71 

Whilst  he  stayed  at  Bologna  a  remarkable  occurrence 
took  place  which  made  a  profound  and  lasting  impres- 
sion on  him.  Pope  Julius  II  entered  that  city  in  military 
triumph  towards  the  end  of  1506.  The  incongruous 
spectacle  of  the  Head  of  the  Christian  Church  com- 
porting himself  as  a  victorious  general  and  receiving, 
in  that  capacity,  political  honours  and  adulation  im- 
planted in  the  mind  of  Erasmus  that  abhorrence  of 
the  warrior-pontiff  and  his  doings  which  recurs  with 
observable  frequency  in  his  epistles.1 

An  event  now  happened  which  raised  the  hopes  of 
the  humanist.  Henry  VII  of  England  died,  and  was 
succeeded  by  a  prince  who  had  already  shown  much 
favour  towards  learned  men  and  with  whom  Erasmus 
had  had  some  correspondence.  The  latter  therefore 
felt  that  he  might  reasonably  expect  a  warm  welcome 
from  such  a  monarch.  Lord  Mount] oy,  moreover, 
wrote  to  him  (at  the  end  of  May)  assuring  him  that  he 
could  rely  on  the  patronage  of  King  Henry  VIII,  and 
that  Archbishop  Warham  had  promised  a  benefice.2 
With  this  letter  he  sent  a  sum  of  money  to  defray 
Erasmus's  expenses  on  the  return  journey.  That 
person  lost  no  time  in  responding  to  so  cordial  an 
invitation,  and  quitted  Rome  in  June  or  July,  notwith- 
standing the  efforts  of  the  Venetian  Cardinal,  Domenico 
Grimani,  to  persuade  him  to  remain.3 

As  has  been  already  said,  it  was  upon  this  return 

Italie,  Paris,  1888,  pp.  16  et  seq.,  67-70;  Nichols,  I,  407, 417-26, 437,  etc. ; 
Drummond,  I,  167-9;  Firmin-Didot  (Ambroise),  Aide  Manuce  et 
Vhellenisme  a  Venise,  Paris,  1875,  p.  317  ;  Eras.  Op.,  I,  993A  and  epistle 
of  Rhenanus  to  Charles  V. 

1  Nisard,  pp.  28-29.  ^n  an  eP-  °f  25tn  August,  151 1,  Erasmus  has  a 
passage  which  Nichols,  II,  21,  assumes  to  bear  reference  to  this  Pope's 
appetite  for  war  :  "  Jam  hoc  commodorum,  quae  ex  bullis  sanctissimis 
capiuntur,  milium  est,  siti  enecamur." — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  io8e.  Allen, 
I,  466,  puts  an  entirely  different  construction  on  the  phrase  ;  he  takes  it 
as  alluding  to  Erasmus's  shortness  of  funds  in  consequence  of  having  to 
pay  for  a  dispensation. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  8b,  e. 

3  Ibid.,  1375c,  d  ;  Allen,  I,  452. 


72  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

journey  to  England  that  Erasmus  originated  the  plan 
of  the  Encomium  Moriac.  Whilst  composing  it  he 
entertained  no  idea  of  publication.  Very  likely,  at  its 
inception  he  had  no  further  object  in  view  than  to 
give  amusement  to  his  host  and  the  frequenters  of  his 
host's  house.  But  More,  or  some  friend  of  his,  obtained 
possession  of  the  manuscript,  and,  without  submitting 
it  to  its  author  for  revision,  despatched  it  to  Paris, 
where  Richard  Croke  arranged  with  the  printer  Gour- 
mont  for  its  publication.  This  event  took  place  in 
1511.  It  will  thus  be  noted  that  two  whole  years 
elapsed  between  its  composition  and  publication,  yet, 
from  lack  of  proper  revision,  the  seven  editions  which 
followed  one  another  in  rapid  succession,  within  a  few 
months  of  its  first  appearance,  were  a  source  of  disquiet 
to  the  author,  because  they  had  been  printed  from  a 
copy  "  not  only  full  of  mistakes,  but  even  incomplete."1 

Whatever  defects  the  eye  of  Erasmus  might  discover 
in  its  production,  it  won  the  public  favour  at  once,  but 
its  popularity  arose  more  from  the  theme  treated  of  than 
from  the  fame  of  its  author.  Though  rapidly  composed 
it  reflected  Erasmus's  sense  of  humour  and  perception 
of  the  ludicrous.  Nevertheless,  the  difference  between 
Brant's  Ship  of  Fools  and  Erasmus's  Praise  of  Folly  is 
quite  fundamental.  The  former  presents  a  satire,  pure 
and  simple,  which  points  no  moral ;  as  for  the  latter, 
Erasmus  consented  to  the  publication  of  the  book  only 
because  he  was  convinced  that  it  might  possibly  serve 
to  teach,  to  rebuke,  to  correct.  Sarcasm  in  truth 
constituted  a  far  smaller  part  of  his  theme  than 
merriment.  By  temperate  ridicule  he  hoped  to  create 
a  hearty  abhorrence  of  present-day  evils. 

Accordingly,  Folly,  mounted  in  a  pulpit,  criticizes 
Grammarians,  Philosophers,  Theologians,  Monks,  Kings, 
Princes,  and  Popes.  The  methods  of  scholastic  theo- 
logy are  assailed  with  ridicule.8    His  wit  turns  against 

1  Erasmi  ad  Dorpium  Apologia,  Allen,  II,  90-1 14. 
*  Eras.  Op.,  IV,  468-9. 


CENSURES  OF  "THE  PRAISE  OF  FOLLY"  73 

ths  monastic  and  religious  orders,  who  (as  he  says) 
assume  both  titles  unjustly.  "  Monastic  "  should  imply 
that  they  live  a  solitary  life,  whereas  they  are  always 
to  be  found  in  the  midst  of  crowds  ;  their  "  religion  " 
consists  of  trivial  observances  and  strict  conformity  to 
foppish  ceremonies.1  He  represents  those  persons  before 
the  tribunal  of  Christ  and  the  account  they  give  of  them- 
selves there  and  the  various  claims  that  they  put  forth 
for  admission  into  heaven.  Among  all  the  different 
duties  which  they  declare  they  have  performed  the 
Lord  does  not  discover  obedience  to  the  one  precept  He 
left,  namely,  to  love  one  another.  The  Saviour,  there- 
fore, bids  them  depart,  and  the  bitterness  of  their 
rejection  is  increased  by  their  beholding  ploughmen 
and  mechanics  entering  that  heaven  from  which  they 
themselves  are  excluded.2  Folly  next  proceeds  to 
laugh  at  the  manner  and  worthlessness  of  their 
preaching.8 

The  words  that  Folly  has  to  deliver  on  Kings  and 
Rulers,  as  these  were  in  Erasmus's  time,  do  not  fall 
far  short  of  the  highest  wisdom.* 

Not  once,  but  on  several  occasions,  in  his  correspon- 
dence, Erasmus  animadverts  severely  upon  Pope  Julius 
II,  and  his  predecessor  Alexander  VI.8  Most,  if  indeed 
not  all,  of  these  censures  occur  soon  after  his  Italian 
travels,  and  indicate  the  effect  produced  on  his  mind  by 
a  somewhat  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  Papacy 
in  its  home.9  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  find  that  Folly 
rebukes  the  modern  type  of  Popes,  and,  to  their  detri- 
ment, contrasts  them  with  the  ancient.7 

1  Ibid.,  471 A-472A.  The  English  trans,  of  the  Praise  of  Folly,  published 
by  Hamilton,  Adams  &  Co.  in  18S7,  is  recommended  to  the  reader  who 
prefers  to  examine  this  work  in  the  vernacular. 

8  Ibid.,  472-474A. 

8  Ibid.,  475A-478C. 

4  Ibid.,  479B,  c. 

6  Ibid.,  II,  778E,  III,  io8a,  hoc,  1 1 50,  etc. 

6  Nolhac,  pp.  77-80. 

1  Eras.  Op.,  IV,  482E-483C,  and  484A-C. 


74  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

Reviewing  the  methods  of  ecclesiastical  administra- 
tion and  the  care  bestowed  upon  religion,  Folly  sums 
up  the  condition  of  affairs  by  accusing  the  people  of 
leaving  the  business  of  religion  to  ecclesiastics  as  if  they 
themselves  had  no  connection  with  the  ecclesia  through 
baptism,  and  at  the  same  time  by  reproving  the  various 
orders  of  clergy  for  transferring  that  burden  from  one 
to  the  other  : — 

Likewise  the  Pontiffs,  being  far  too  much  occupied 
with  their  money-gathering,  deliver  over  their  most 
distinctively  Apostolic  labours  to  the  Bishops,  the 
Bishops  to  the  Parsons,  the  Parsons  to  the  Vicars,  the 
Vicars  to  the  Friars.  These  last  again  shove  them 
upon  those  who  shear  the  flock  of  its  wool.1 

It  was  a  bold  attack.  So  veiled,  however,  so  hidden 
beneath  the  shadow  of  the  cap  and  bells  that,  as 
Erasmus  said  in  the  Dedication,  "  he  who  cried  out 
that  he  was  hurt  would  only  reveal  the  stings  of  his 
conscience  or  his  dread  of  disclosure."2 

Nevertheless,  it  may  well  be  questioned  if  the  entire 
controversy  of  later  years  with  the  Protestant  reformers 
ever  produced  severer  denunciations  or  bitterer  invec- 
tives against  the  Roman  hierarchy  and  the  religious 
orders  than  Erasmus  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Folly. 
Not  even  Calvin,  in  his  Letter  to  Paul  III,  or  in  his 
Inventory  of  Relics,  reached  such  a  degree  of  acrimony. 
Although  the  French  reformer  expressed  his  damnatory 
statements  in  polished  language,  his  fault-finding  was 
characterized  by  relentless  mordacity,  sometimes  even 
by  offensive  personalities.  But  Folly's  reproaches 
attained  a  much  higher  rank  in  pungency  and  efficacy 
from  the  half-humorous  manner  of  their  delivery  and 
the  care  with  which  they  were  restrained  within  the 
limits  of  the  actual  truth. 

The  issue  of  this  book  was  not  meant  for  a  party 

1  Ibid.,  485E-486A. 

*  "  Ergo  si  quis  exstiterit,  qui  sese  lacsum  clamabit,  is  aut  conscien- 
tiam  prodet  suam,  aut  ccrte  metum." 


THE  CHURCH  IN  1511  75 

attack,  since  at  the  time  no  party  as  yet  existed  that 
could  claim  it  as  a  weapon  of  assault.  But  undoubtedly 
the  book  formed  an  instrument,  and  that  a  most  potent 
one,  in  favour  of  reform,  through  its  exhibition  of  the 
notorious  scandals  which  required  it.  The  occasion  of 
its  publication,  moreover,  was  singularly  appropriate. 
Old  man  as  he  was,  Pope  Julius  in  the  January  of  15  n 
had  braved  the  rigours  of  winter  and  betaken  himself 
to  the  command  of  his  army  at  the  siege  of  Mirandola. 
There  he  had  conducted  himself  as  a  general,  scolding 
his  officers  and  sometimes  using  coarse  language  and 
oaths  for  enforcing  his  authority.1  His  nephew,  the 
Duke  of  Urbino,  had  murdered  the  Cardinal  Alidosi 
in  the  streets  of  Ravenna  (May,  1511)  whither  the  Pope 
had  come.2  Alidosi's  death  was  no  great  matter  of 
regret  to  his  brother  Cardinals,  but  some  of  these  had 
their  own  grievances  against  Julius.  Moved,  therefore, 
partly  by  private  animosities  and  partly  by  desires  for 
reform,  five  of  them  drew  up  a  summons  for  a  General 
Council  to  meet  at  Pisa  on  1st  September,  and  caused 
a  notice  of  this  to  be  affixed  to  a  church  door  in  Rimini, 
to  which  place  they  were  aware  that  the  Pope  was 
advancing.  Of  the  contemporary  monarchs  Louis  XII 
of  France  and  the  Emperor  supported  the  revolt  of  the 
Cardinals.  Henry  VIII  of  England,  instead  of  joining, 
sent  to  the  Pope  the  letters  which  Cardinal  Carvajal, 
the  leader  of  the  malcontents,  had  addressed  to  him. 

Immediately  on  his  arrival  in  Rome  Julius  announced 
that  he  had  most  anxiously  been  meditating  the  advisa- 
bility of  convening  a  reforming  Council,  and  forthwith 
summoned  one  to  meet  at  the  Lateran  in  the  following 
April  (1512).  His  only  object  in  this  move  was  to 
stultify  the  Cardinals'  Council  at  Pisa  by  making  it 
appear  that  he  entertained  a  serious  intention  of  remov- 
ing scandals  and  introducing  salutary  changes. 

So  stood  the  affairs  of  the  Church  when  the  Praise  of 

1  Creighton,  V,  143. 

2  See  the  trans,  of  Julius  Exclusus  in  Froude,  Erasmus,  p.  161. 


76  COLET  AS  DEAN  OF  ST.  PAUL'S 

Folly  issued  from  Gourmont's  press  in  Paris  and 
Schiirer's  at  Strasburg.  To  a  Christendom  amused  with 
the  wise  sallies  of  Folly  the  rebellious  Cardinals,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  Pope  with  his  Cardinals,  on  the  other, 
presented  a  pitifully  ludicrous  spectacle,  as  they  cursed, 
excommunicated,  and  deposed  each  other,  without  any 
awful  consequences  ensuing—if  indeed  any  one  of  the 
belligerents  expected  them  to  occur. 

From  1509  to  1511  Erasmus  passed  his  time  in 
London,  residing  for  the  most  part,  presumably,  either 
in  the  house  of  Thomas  More,  or  that  of  Lord  Mount  joy. 
During  the  last  of  these  years,  he  paid  a  short  visit  to 
Paris  at  or  about  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the 
Praise  of  Folly.1  When  he  returned  to  England,  he 
went  to  Cambridge  to  lecture  in  Greek  on  the  under- 
standing that  he  was  to  receive  a  small  stipend  from  the 
University.2  He  hoped  also  to  obtain  fees  from  the 
students  who  came  to  his  lectures.  Archbishop 
Warham's  generosity  provided  occasional  additions  to 
his  funds.  This  account  of  his  income  precludes  us 
from  supposing  that  Erasmus  was  actually  overloaded 
with  presents,  but  likely  enough  the  assistance  his 
patrons  gave  him  would  have  been  deemed  ample  for 
any  other  literary  man  of  that  time.  Erasmus,  however, 
was  always  in  need  of  books,  and  these  proved  expen- 
sive. Without  them  he  was  restless,  because  unable  to 
continue  his  work.  To  obtain  these  and  some  other 
things  which  he  regarded  as  indispensable  he  con- 
stantly pleaded,  nay  begged,  to  have  larger  funds  at 
his  disposal. 

Whilst  in  London  he  met  Dean  Colet  frequently. 
There  occurs,  therefore,  no  epistle  from  one  to  the  other 
during  that  period.  But  the  first  letter  he  wrote  after 
his  arrival  at  Cambridge  seems  to  be  that  which  he 
sent  to  Colet.8 

If    my    misfortune   can    rouse    thy    laughter,    thou 
hast  plenty   at   which   to   laugh.      For  besides  those 
1  Cp.  Scebohm,  p.  205.      2  Nichols,  II,  18.      '  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  108. 


ARRIVAL  OF  ERASMUS  AT  CAMBRIDGE  77 

mischances  that  befell  me  in  London,  my  man's  horse 
went  lame,  because  the  hostler  had  changed  the  one 
Bullock  had  provided.1  Next,  there  was  no  food  to 
be  obtained  on  the  entire  route.  The  following  day, 
rain,  and  nothing  but  rain,  until  dinner-time.2  After 
dinner,  thunder,  lightning,  showers,  horse  stumbling 
thrice.  Bullock,  having  taken  an  observation  of  the 
heavens,  said  he  noticed  that  Jove  was  somewhat 
angry  ! 

At  last  I  am  satisfied  that  I  behold  the  footprints  of 
Christian  poverty  !  Of  gain  I  hope  for  none,  since 
here,  indeed,  I  learn  that  I  am  to  squander  whatever 
I  can  drag  from  my  patrons.  There  is  here  a  country- 
man of  mine,  a  physician,  who  claims  to  work  marvels 
by  a  remedy  of  the  fifth  essence.  He  makes  young 
men  out  of  grey-beards,  living  men  out  of  dead  ones. 
So  I  have  some  hope  of  becoming  young  again,  if 
only  I  can  get  a  taste  of  the  fifth  essence.  If  that 
occurs,  I  will  not  at  all  regret  coming  hither.  For, 
as  to  profit,  I  see  none.  What  can  I  make  out  of 
those  who  have  not,  since  I  am  not  a  rascal,  and  have 
not  been  born  under  the  benign  favour  of  Mercury?* 

Farewell,  excellent  teacher.  When  I  begin  to  lec- 
ture I  will  let  thee  know  how  the  business  progresses, 
as  thou  wilt  have  something  more  to  excite  thy 
laughter. 

Cambridge,  Queen's  College,*  August  24th,   1511. 

Perchance  I  shall  dare  even  to  enter  upon  thy  Paul. 
Behold    the    audacity    of    thine    Erasmus  !       Again 
farewell.5 
Colet  replied  to  this  letter,  but  his  answer  has  not 
been  preserved. 

1  Bullock  (Bovillus)  was  resident  at  Cambridge. 

*  I.e.,  about  10  or  n  a.m.,  if  the  hours  of  meals  in  Colleges  and 
Universities  are  to  be  taken  as  the  usual  hours  throughout  the  country. — 
Rashdall,  11,653. 

3  Mercury  was  the  god  of  thieves. 

*  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  pp.  496-506,  gives  some  interesting 
particulars  regarding  Erasmus's  stay  at  this  College. 

8  That  is,  to  produce  a  commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 


CHAPTER   IV 

LEFEVRE    D'ETAPLES    AND    THE    MOVEMENT    HE 
INITIATED    AT    PARIS 

During  the  first  phase  of  the  reform  movement  in 
France,  of  the  men  whose  labours  were  purely  evangeli- 
cal and  guided  by  Catholic  instincts,  no  inconsiderable 
number  derived  their  origin  from  the  northern  part  of 
that  country,  especially  from  Picardy  and  Artois.1 
Chief  among  them  was  Jacques  Lefevre  (Jacobus  Faber 
Stapulensis),  of  Staples,  a  place  which  at  the  time  of 
his  birth  lay  on  the  confines  of  the  Boulonnais,  but  was 
afterwards  included  in  Picardy.  His  name  is  to-day 
very  familiar  to  French  Protestants,  who  claim  him  as 
the  first  "  Reformateur."  He  was  indeed  a  reformer, 
but  in  an  entirely  different  sense  from  that  in  which 
this  title  is  conferred  upon  Calvin,  Beza,  and  the  rest 
of  their  company.  His  aims  were  dissimilar  in  character 
from  those  of  the  great  leaders  of  French  Protestantism, 
and  approached  much  more  closely,  in  idea  and 
execution,  to  those  of  Dean  Colet  whose  contemporary 
he  was. 

This  remarkable  man,  one  who  wielded  enormous 
influence  in  his  day,  has  been  forgotten  by  all  but 
Frenchmen.  But,  in  his  own  time,  his  fame  does  not 
seem  to  have  reached  to  any  degree  beyond  the  limits 
of  his  native  land,2  and,  even  within  them,  he  was  not 

1  Lalanne  (Ludovic),  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris  sous  le  regne 
de  Francois  1*,  Paris,  1854,  pp.  378-84,  447-9  ;  and  pp.  291,  450. 

2  Bilibald  Pirckheimer  had  a  high  regard  for  him. — Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 

78 


EARLY  DAYS  AT  STAPLES  79 

always  much  more  than  a  name  to  his  compatriots.1 
Nowadays,  the  difficulty  experienced  when  an  attempt 
is  made  to  reconstruct  his  history  does  not  proceed 
from  any  ambiguity  as  to  his  position  or  influence  among 
his  contemporaries,  but  solely  from  the  absence  of 
sufficient  means  for  ascertaining  the  details  of  his  life.2 
Efforts  in  recent  years  to  obtain  some  new  and  interest- 
ing facts  have  been  rewarded  with  very  indifferent 
success.  A  few  more  scattered  notices  of  him  or  a  few 
more  epistles  addressed  to  him  constitute  the  entire 
gain.  Consequently,  it  appears  vain  to  expect  that  a 
really  satisfactory  biography  of  Lefevre  d' Staples  will 
ever  be  written.  The  similarity  between  Colet  and 
Lefevre  in  character,  thought,  and  action,  extends  to 
this  particular  also.  For,  if  it  were  not  for  the  epistles 
of  Erasmus,  Colet  would  be  even  less  known  than  his 
French  contemporary,  and  there  are  many  lacunce 
in  the  life-history  of  the  Englishman  which  no  lapse  of 
time  is  likely  to  fill  up. 

Lefevre  was  born  at  Staples,  a  seaport  of  north- 
western France,  in  or  about  1455. 3    This  little  town, 

550c,  6i8d.  He  was  well  known  in  Germany  as  a  philosopher — see 
Delaruelle  (Dr.  Louis),  Guillaume  Bude,  les  origines,  les  debuts,  les  idees 
mattresses  (Etudes  sur  I'humanismus  francais),  Paris,  1907,  p.  51.  Spanish 
theologians  (especially  Stunica),  and  English  theologians  (such  as  Bishop 
Fisher),  were  acquainted  with  his  writings.  Doumergue  (Prof.  E.), 
Jean  Calvin,  Les  hommes  et  les  choses  de  son  temps,  Lausanne,  1899, 
I,  550,  cites  Kawerau  as  declaring  that  he  found  traces  of  Lefevre's 
Quincuplex  Psalterium  in  Luther's  lectures  on  the  Psalms  in  15 13-15 16, 
and  Scheibe  as  proving  his  influence  over  Calvin. 

1  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois,  p.  277. 

2  Barnaud  (Dr.  Jean),  Jacques  Lefevre  d'Etaples,  son  influence  sur 
les  origines  de  la  Reformation  Francaise,  Cahors,  1900,  p.  9,  complains  of 
the  disappointment  he  experienced  from  his  fruitless  endeavours  to 
obtain  additional  materials. 

3  There  is  great  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  the  year  of  his  birth,  and 
sometimes  the  difference  is  serious.  Some  put  the  date  as  early  as  1435, 
thus  making  him  a  centenarian  at  his  death.  Doumergue,  I,  78  and  App. 
IV,  has  examined  the  evidence  and  decided  for  this  early  date.  Yet  Dr. 
Delaruelle  seems  justly  to  object  to  carrying  the  date  higher  than  1445. — 
Guill.  Bude,  p.  46  n.  4.  Dr.  Graf,  Zeitschrift  fur  die  historische  Theologie, 
1852,  note  on  pp.  4  and  5,  fixes  upon  1450  as  the  approximate  year. 


So  LEFfiVRE  D'fiTAPLES 

known  as  Quantowic  during  the  reigns  of  the  early 
Frankish  kings,  is  situated  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
river  Canche.  Its  harbour  was  a  celebrated  one  under 
Dagobert  and  Charlemagne,  and,  save  for  Rouen, 
constituted  the  only  place  of  embarkation  for  England. 
Accordingly,  it  was  from  here  that  St.  Augustine  took 
boat  for  his  missionary  tour  in  Kent.  The  Church  of 
St.  Michel,  where  this  event  is  commemorated  with  a 
tablet,  claims  to  have  been  built  by  "Angli" — 
English  prisoners,  according  to  local  tradition — in  1004. 
Incursions  of  Northmen,  however,  reduced  the  port  to 
a  ruinous  state,  and,  though  its  ancient  marts  and 
corporation  were  revived  by  a  communal  charter  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  it  was  not  until  the  fifteenth 
that  its  trade  attained  notable  proportions.  Thus, 
in  his  infancy,  Lef evre  witnessed  the  new  life  and  intense 
activities  of  his  native  place.  Once  more  its  markets 
became  thronged  with  sailors  and  merchants  of  many 
nations.  Contact  with  the  foreigners  who  came  there 
no  doubt  had  its  effect  in  developing  an  originality  of 
thought,  an  independence  of  judgment,  which  remained 
a  marked  characteristic  of  Lefevre  all  through  his  life. 
His  faculty  of  curiosity  was  stimulated  by  the  appear- 
ance of  so  much  that  was  unfamiliar.  His  eager  desire 
to  find  the  real  grounds  on  which  things  rested  and  his 
dissatisfaction  with  the  explanations  usually  offered 
by  authority,  derived  their  origin  from  his  wanderings 
amongst  the  visitors  to  Staples  and  the  conversations 
of  which  he  was  an  attentive  auditor.  To  those  early 
surroundings  we  must  attribute,  above  all,  that  deeply 
rooted  conception  of  the  Catholicity  of  the  Christian 
Church  which  afterwards  coloured  his  teaching  so 
distinctively.  When  he  left  Staples,  he  carried  with 
him  a  profound  and  conservative  sense  of  religion  which 
is  still  a  noted  trait  of  the  fitaplois.  For  these,  descended 
as  they  are  from  the  diverse  races  that  used  to  throng 
the  little  port,  retain  in  their  popular  Christian  beliefs 
to-day  a  strange  mixture  of  pagan  notions  handed 
down  from  far-off  ancestors. 


LEFfiVRE  NOT  A  HUMANIST  81 

As  the  boy  displayed  a  capacity  for  learning,  Lef evre's 
parents,  who  appear  to  have  been  in  comfortable  cir- 
cumstances,1 sent  him  to  the  University  of  Paris.  Once 
there  he  cared  so  little  for  anything  beyond  study  that 
he  abandoned  to  his  greedy  brothers  and  nephews  his 
own  rights  of  inheritance. 

At  the  University  he  attached  himself,  by  inclination, 
to  the  small  company  that  enthusiastically  admired 
the  ancient  Classics.  To  call  him,  therefore,  a  devotee 
of  literature  and  a  philosopher  is  not  altogether  an 
error.  But,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  whatever  his 
admiration  for  the  humanities,  other  mental  tendencies 
and  his  innate  reverence  for  sacred  things  deflected 
that  admiration  into  a  direction  which  cannot  pro- 
perly be  termed  either  "  humanistic  "  or  "  Christian- 
humanistic."  There  was  little  or  nothing  of  the 
humanist  about  him.  A  living  French  writer  observes 
that  hitherto  the  only  aspect  of  Lefevre's  life-work 
which  has  received  adequate  attention  is  the  reformatory 
or  religious,  and  thus  (he  implies)  his  importance  as  a 
great  philosopher,  a  great  "  litterateur,"  has  been 
obscured.2  But  it  is  unquestionably  true  that  the 
religious  work  of  Lefevre  surpasses,  in  quantity, 
lasting  value,  and  celebrity,  his  purely  literary  or 
philosophical  labours.  A  glance  at  a  moderately 
correct  list  of  his  productions  will  suffice  to  justify  the 
inferences  of  his  earlier  biographers.8 

1  One  authority,  Florimond  de  R6mond  [Histoire  de  la  naissance, 
progris  et  decadence  de  Vheresie  de  ce  siecle)  says,  "  Le  Fevre  qui  portoit 
le  surnom  d'Estaple,  village  de  sa  naissance,  pauvre  enfant  sans  berceau 
et  sans  aveu."  But  this  remark  may  be  safely  rejected,  in  face  of  over- 
whelming contemporary  evidence  to  the  contrary — see  Graf,  Zeitschrift, 
etc.,  p.  6  note,  and  Doumergue,  I,  79,  n.  5. 

2  Delaruelle,  p.  46,  n.  4. 

8  Graf,  Zeitschrijt,  etc.,  p.  10,  correctly  enough  remarks  :  "  In  his 
studies  of  the  Classics  he  attended  more  to  what  they  said  than  to  the 
skill  with  which  they  said  it.  And  when,  later  on,  he  occupied  himself 
with  biblical  studies,  he  discarded  the  reading  of  the  Latin  poets  such  as 
Tibullus,  Catullus,  Terence,  Ovid,  which  were  put  carelessly  into  the 
hands  of  the  young — indeed,  he  thought  the  works  of  Lucretius,  Pliny, 


82  lef£vre  D'fiTAPLES 

There  is  no  distinct  record  of  him  before  1488-89. 
We  only  know  that  he  had,  by  that  time,  attained  the 
degree  of  Master  of  Arts  and  had  entered  into  Koly 
Orders.  Whether  he  ever  actually  exercised  the  func- 
tions of  a  priest,  or  held  a  benefice,  cannot  now  be 
determined.  His  ecclesiastical  status  corresponded, 
indeed,  with  that  of  a  clerical  fellow  of  Oxford  or  Cam- 
bridge at  the  present  day.  It  is  an  error  to  describe 
him,  as  some  have  done,  as  a  Doctor  of  the  Sorbonne, 
for  he  never  graduated  in  Theology.  In  the  year 
mentioned,1  he  went  on  his  first  journey  to  Italy,  a 
country  he  possibly  visited  on  several  occasions  before 
the  close  of  the  century.  He  certainly  was  there  again 
in  1500.  A  controversy  has  arisen  over  the  date  of  his 
first  visit  to  Italy,  some  maintaining  that  he  travelled 
thither  in  1492  for  the  first  time,2  others  asserting  the 
earlier  date  given  above.  The  latter  would  seem  to  be 
the  most  likely. 

As  in  Colet's  case,  the  first  Italian  journey  signified 
for  Lefevre  the  entrance  upon  a  new  phase  of  intellec- 
tual existence,  in  which  there  was  much  that  appealed 
to  his  unusually  independent  mind  and  his  passion  for 
investigation.  From  this  event  must  be  reckoned  his 
deep  interest  in  one  particular  department  of  Greek 
literature.      Italy   did   not   make   him   a   humanist,8 

Lucian,  etc.,  ought  to  be  destroyed."  Dr.  Graf  is  here  citing  Lefevre's 
comments  on  i  Cor.  xv,  33  and  2  Cor.  v,  7.  In  the  latter  place,  he  apos- 
trophizes some  of  the  Classical  authors  thus  :  "  0  Plini,  o  Luciane, 
o  infelix  Epicure,  o  surdi  et  coeci  et  quotquot  hujus  infelicis  scholae  hac 
in  parte  sunt  discipuli." 

Like  Colet,  Lefevre  disliked  humanistic  "  blotterature." 

1  Barnaud,  Lefevre  d' Staples,  p.  12. 

2  For  instance,  Delaruelle,  Guill.  Bude,  p.  46,  n.  5.  Doumergue,  how- 
ever, I,  79,  n.  6,  adduces  much  evidence  in  support  of  1 488-9.  On  the  other 
hand,  Graf,  pp.  8-9,  has  a  note  showing  that  the  visit  must  have  occurred 
in  1492.  The  proofs  he  produces  for  this  date  are  very  strong,  but 
nothing  that  he  shows  invalidates  the  statement  of  Beatus  Rhenanus  in 
a  letter  to  Reuchlin  (given  by  Bulaeus,  VI,  492) :  "  Jacobus  Faber  .  .  . 
philosophiam  .  .  .  ita  illustravit,  ut  Hermolao  Barbaro  et  Argyropylo 
Byzantio,  praeceptoribus  olim  suis,  huic  longe  plus  nitoris  attulerit." 

*  Delaruelle,  p.  53. 


ARISTOTELIAN  STUDIES  83 

indeed,  but  there  he  learned  to  appreciate  the  philosophy 
of  Aristotle,  whom  he  preferred  to  Plato,  and  to  become 
dissatisfied  with  the  prevalent  type  of  scholastic  philo- 
sophy in  proportion  as  he  studied  the  writings  of  the 
Greek  philosopher  in  the  original.  On  his  return  to 
his  own  country,  he  formed  the  determination  to  give 
Aristotle  to  his  compatriots  in  a  purer  and  more  correct 
form  than  had  hitherto  been  possible.  During  the 
middle  ages  Aristotle  was  not  altogether  unknown  in 
western  Europe  ;  but,  inasmuch  as  information  con- 
cerning him  had  come  through  Arabic  sources,  his 
works  had  suffered  considerably  from  the  devious 
routes  by  which  they  reached  the  mediaeval  student.1 
The  years  that  followed  his  return  were  busy  ones  for 
Lefevre  at  Paris.  He  lectured  on  philosophy  and  mathe- 
matics, and  published  the  Logic,  Physics,  and  Ethics 
of  Aristotle,  which  he  corrected  in  accordance  with  the 
Greek  texts.2  But  if  he  so  delivered  himself  to  the  study 
and  teaching  of  philosophy,  he  had  no  idea  of  permitting 
abstract  speculation  to  become  the  goal  of  his  labours. 
Lefevre  had  learnt  in  his  childhood,  as  he  watched  the 
traders  in  his  native  place,  the  practical  lesson  of 
drawing  from  mental  qualities  some  definite  advantage 
or  profit.  Hence,  all  through  his  life,  study,  whether 
of  philosophy  or  literature,  or  of  any  other  branch  of 
learning,  subserved  one  end — the  good  of  Christianity. 
This  attitude  of  mind  marked  the  wide  difference  between 
Lefevre  and  the  scholastic  philosophers  of  his  time. 

1  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb.,  pp.  95-6  :  "  The  statement  of  Renan 
leaves  us  almost  bewildered  as  we  seek  to  realize  the  labyrinth  which  the 
thought  of  Aristotle  was  thus  doomed  to  traverse  :  '  Quant  a  la  barbarie 
du  langage  d'Averroes,  peut-on  s'en  etonner  quand  on  songe  que  les 
editions  imprimees  de  ses  ceuvrcs  n'offrent  qu'une  traduction  latinc  d'une 
traduction  hebraique  d'un  commentaire  fait  sur  une  traduction  arabe  d'une 
traduction  syriaque  d'un  texte  grcc'  " 

As  Mr.  Mullinger  points  out,  ibid.,  p.  154,  translations,  direct  from  the 
Greek,  of  the  Nicomachean  Ethics  were  made  as  early  as  Bp.  Grosstcste 
of  Lincoln  (1175-1253).  This  would  appear  to  have  been  an  English 
anticipation  of  Lefevre's  labours. 

*  Barnaud,  Lefevre,p.  14  ;  Delaruelle,  Bude,p.  52. 


84  LEFfiVRE  D'£TAPLES 

Three  periods  in  the  growth  of  his  thought  manifest 
themselves.  The  first,  occupied  with  mathematics  and 
philosophy,  ended  in  1498.  His  pursuit  of  truth  in 
philosophy  led  him  by  slow  degrees  to  deep  meditation 
of  holy  things  ;l  and  accordingly,  the  second  period 
began  when  he  exchanged  the  study  of  the  pagan 
philosopher  for  that  of  the  Christian  mystics.*  In  these 
works  of  piety  he  was  immersed  for  ten  years.  During 
that  time  he  resided  in  the  College  of  Cardinal  Lemoine, 
where  he  delivered  lectures  and  had  many  famous 
pupils.  Of  these,  two  deserve  particular  mention,  as 
they  represented,  later  on,  two  schools  of  thought 
amongst  those  who  sought  to  reform  the  Christian 
religion  in  France.  One  was  Guillaume  Farel,  the 
fiery  apostle  of  militant  Protestantism,  the  precursor, 
friend,  and  assistant  of  John  Calvin.  The  other  was 
Guillaume  de  Briconnet,  Bishop  of  Lodeve,  a  cultured 
nobleman,  son  of  a  minister  of  the  Crown,  who  had  taken 
orders  and  become  Archbishop  of  Narbonne  and 
Cardinal.*  We  shall  have  occasion  in  later  chapters  to 
mark  the  careers  of  these  two  persons  whose  lives  took 
such  divergent  courses.  It  was  not  till  1508  that 
Lefevre  began  to  devote  himself  in  earnest  to  the  ex- 
position of  Holy  Scripture  and  thus  opened  the  third 
and  final  period  of  his  life-work.  From  this  date  until 
the  end  of  his  earthly  existence,  he  consecrated  all  his 
powers  to  this  sacred  task.* 

The  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century  wit- 
nessed in  France  a  distinct  turning  of  many  minds  to- 
wards ecclesiastical  reform.  A  characteristic  of  this 
phase  of  thought  was  the  desire  to  combine  all  that  was 
good  in  the  Classical  Renaissance  with  the  eternal 
verities  of  religion.  "  To  broaden  Christianity,  to 
purify  Humanism,  to  blend  them  into  one  grand 
religion  which  should  comply  with  the  requirements 
of  the  intellect  and  the  soul,  such  was  the  aspiration  of 

1  Barnaud,  op.  cit.,  p.  r  5.  '  Delaruelle,  p.  48. 

3  Creighton,  IV,  234.  *  Delaruelle,  p.  48. 


BIBLICAL  EXEGESIS  85 

those  who  adopted  the  ideas  of  the  great  Christians  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  Gerson,  the  Brethren  of  the 
Common  Life,  and  Nicolas  of  Cues."1  But  the  tradi- 
tions of  authority,  as  well  as  the  conservative  disposi- 
tions of  most  of  the  clergy,  were  everywhere  opposed 
to  any  such  ideals.  Little  by  little,  the  prestige  of  the 
great  theologians  of  the  thirteenth  century  had  been 
substituted  for  that  of  Holy  Writ.  "  Christianity 
threatened  to  date  from  St.  Thomas  Aquinas."2  But, 
indeed,  their  disciples  had  gradually  departed  from  the 
road  marked  out  by  the  great  Doctors.  The  juridical 
and  ecclesiastical  temper  of  those  disputants,  who 
called  themselves  by  party-names  derived  from  these 
noble  leaders  of  mediaeval  theology,  introduced  too 
close  an  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  text,  as  well  as 
a  perverse  system  of  commentation  thereupon,  into 
the  works  of  the  Masters  in  such  a  manner  that  "  exege- 
sis became  doctrine  and  the  School  ended  by  super- 
seding the  Church."* 

If  the  difficulties,  which,  in  consequence,  presented 
themselves  to  all  who  sought  to  restore  the  honour  and 
usefulness  of  Christianity,  stood  in  the  way  of  Lefevre's 
project,  nevertheless,  at  that  epoch,  no  one  was,  by 
circumstances  and  training,  better  qualified  to  impress 
on  his  generation  the  value  of  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible. 
Not  only  did  he  possess  a  firm  faith  in  Christianity,  as 
it  was  set  forth  in  the  Gospels  and  Pauline  Epistles, 
but  also  the  very  bent  of  his  mental  powers  facilitated 
such  a  congenial  task,  formed  as  these  were  by  the 
convergence  of  the  mystical  and  the  intellectual  in  a 
marvellously  simple  soul.*  Thus  the  philosopher,  the 
mystic,  and  the  savant  coexisted  in  him  with  the  gentle, 
faithful  Christian,  i  But  besides  these  qualifications  of 
head  and  heart,  he  enjoyed,  as  the  restorer  of  the 
Aristotelian    philosophy,1  a  high    reputation    in    the 

1  Lavisse,  Hist,  de  France,  V,  339. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  340.  *  Ibid.         *  Ibid.,  p.  342. 

4  See  Reuchlin't  letter  to  Lefevre,  3 1st  Auguit,  1513,  given  by  Bulaeus, 


86  LEFEVRE  D'£TAPLES 

University  of  Paris  and  throughout  the  learned  world. 
If  it  had  not  been  for  his  cautious  and  mild  tempera- 
ment, he  might  well  have  become  the  centre  of  the 
company  of  brilliant  scholars  then  to  be  found  in  Paris, 
over  whom  he  undoubtedly  exercised  a  powerful  in- 
fluence.1 Moreover,  about  1508,  certain  advantages 
accrued  to  him  which  increased  his  power  and  reputa- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  he  obtained,  though  not  a  monk, 
a  secure  residence  in  the  famous  monastery  of  St. 
Germain-des-Pres.  Here  he  dwelt,  not  as  an  inmate 
subject  to  rules  and  restrictions,  but  as  the  favoured 
scholar,  the  honoured  guest  of  the  family,  the  Bricon- 
nets,  that  held  the  Abbacy.  About  the  same  time  too 
he  received  an  introduction  (probably  through  the  same 
distinguished  family)  to  the  Court,2  an  event  which  was 
to  prove  of  inestimable  value  to  him  in  later  days. 
That  these  circumstances  tended  to  impart  to  Lefevre's 
position,  weight  and  importance  is  to  be  inferred  less 
from  the  actual  records  of  French  history  or  from  any- 
thing he  himself  has  written  than  from  the  place 
assigned  him  by  German  and  English  scholars  of  hie 
time,  themselves  of  no  mean  rank  in  their  own  countries. 
The  first  result  of  the  new  direction  of  his  studies  was 
the  Quincuplex  Psalterium  published  by  Henri  Estienne 
in  1509.  It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  bestow  a  sufficiently 
descriptive  title  upon  this  work.  Clearly  it  was  intended 
to  be  a  kind  of  study  in  Textual  Criticism,  a  science 
indeed  not  yet  born.  The  first  portion  of  the  book  is 
occupied  with  the  three  Latin  Versions  of  St.  Jerome, 
called  by  Lefevre  the  "  Gallican,"  that  is,  the  version 

Hist.  Univ.  Parisiensis,  VI,  61,  and  by  Herminjard  (A.  L.),  Correspon- 
dence des  Rcformateurs  dans  les  pays  de  langue  jrancaise,  2de  Edition, 
Geneve  et  Paris,  1878, 1,  12;  Sir  Thomas  More's  lengthy  letter  of  remon- 
strance to  Martin  Dorpius,  21st  October,  151 5,  in  Eras.  Op.,  111,18960,  e. 

1  Epistle  of  Beatus  Rhenanus,  quoted  by  Delaruelle,  p.  46,  from 
Clerval,  De  Iudoci  Clichtovei  Vita  :  "  J.  F.  Stapulensis,  qui  turn  propter 
emergentia  studia  meliora  quibus  pro  virili  succurrebat,  tantum  non 
Deus  quispiam  videbatur." 

*  Barnaud,  op.  cit.,  p.  21. 


TEXTUAL  CRITICISM  87 

adopted  in  Gaul,  the  "  Roman,"  that  adopted  at  Rome, 
and  the  "  Hebrew,"  that  which  was  made  direct  from 
the  Hebrew  for  Sophronius.  These  are  printed  in 
parallel  columns  for  the  purpose  of  comparison.  The 
second  portion  contained  the  Old  Latin  Version  (that 
in  vogue  before  St.  Jerome  made  his  versions)  and 
Lefevre's  own  revised  or  harmonized  (Conciliatum) 
version,  these  two  being  also  printed  in  parallel  columns. 
It  would  be  of  great  interest  and  value  now  to  know 
what  manuscripts  he  used.  We  are  aware,  from  the 
labours  of  Robert  Estienne  in  1540,  that  there  then 
existed  many  precious  codices  of  the  Vulgate  in  the 
library  of  St.  Germain-des-Pres.  In  his  preface  to  this 
work  Lefevre  mentions  his  having  consulted  many 
ancient,  worm-eaten  codices,  but  that  is  all  he  says 
about  them.1  Yet  the  very  form  of  his  Quincuple 
Psalter  displays  an  acquaintance  with  the  MSS.  of 
St.  Germain-des-Pres  and  those  of  other  considerable 
libraries  of  that  era.1  The  statement  that  Lefevre 
performed  several  long  journeys  for  the  purpose  of 
advancing  this  work,  though  it  is  unsupported  by 
particulars,  receives  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  he 
must  have  seen,  and  perhaps  also  employed,  in  the 
execution  of  his  task,  a  number  of  notable  manuscripts 
then  the  property  of  distant  communities  and  corpora- 
tions.8 A  Psalter  setting  forth  the  most  renowned 
versions,  with  corrections  from  the  ancient  Hebrew 
original  or  from  the  Greek,  was  by  no  means  a  novel 
product.  For,  one  of  the  results  of  the  movement 
towards  reform  in  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  had 

1  "  Pii  et  religiosi  viri  Cartusii  et  Celestini  .  .  .  deflcntes  tarn  dignum 
et  insignem  patrum  nostrorum  laborem  inter  tineas  et  blattas  longo  situ 
deperire." — Quincuplex  Psalterium.     Gallicum.   Romanian.   Hebraicum. 

Vetus.   Conciliatum.     Paris  (Hen.  Steph.),  1509,  Preface  addressed  to 
Cardl.  Briconnet. 

2  He  refers  to  them  perhaps  in  these  words  :  "  ut  in  vetustioribus 
bibliothecis  licet  adhuc  intueri." — Pref.  to  Quirt.  Psalt. 

*  Graf,  pp.  17-9,  and  notes  33-8,  mentions  extensive  voyages  under- 
taken bv  Lefevre. 


88  LEFfiVRE  D'liTAPLES 

been  the  establishment  under  Alcuin  of  the  calligraphic 
school  at  Tours  whose  work  spread  throughout  the 
neighbouring  countries,  Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  and  the 
Netherlands,  as  well  as  France.  Sometimes  originals, 
sometimes  copies,  of  the  noble  productions  of  this 
Alcuinian  school  of  consecrated  penmanship  are  still  to 
be  met  with  in  divers  places.  One  peculiarity  of  them 
is  that  not  unusually  the  Psalters  are  double,  triple, 
or  quadruple  :  the  Gospels  and  Bibles  bear  traces  of 
attempts  at  revision,  or  what  we  should,  in  modern 
style,  term  critical  emendations.  Accordingly,  we  hear 
of  a  Spanish  codex  of  the  ninth  century  which  has  three 
Psalters,  Gallican,  Hebraic,  and  Ante-Hieronymian  ;* 
of  another  at  St.  Gall,  a  bilingual  Psalter  (Greek  and 
Latin)  of  the  same  period,  which  is  probably  connected 
with  the  bilingual  Psalter  at  Basle ;  *  of  the  famous 
quadruple  Psalter  of  Salomon  III,  Abbot  of  St.  Gall 
(891-920),  which  gives  the  "  Gallican,"  "  Roman," 
"  Hebraic,"  and  "  Greek "  versions,  the  last  being 
written  in  the  Roman  characters,  thus  :  "  Marcarios 
anir  os  uc  eporeuthi,"  etc.8  Not  the  least  remarkable  of 
all  is  that  which  Robert  Estienne  called  "  S.  Germani 
exemplar  parvum,"  and  which  is  as  old  as  any  of  those 
mentioned.*  That  Lefevre  consulted  many  other 
manuscripts  is  evidenced  by  his  retention  of  the  ancient 
form  in  the  compilation  of  the  critical  part  of  his  work. 
His  book  originated  no  new  method  ;  as  a  scholar  he 
was  wholly  conservative.  But  if  he  therein  advanced 
the  science  of  textual  criticism  not  a  single  step,  he  at 
least,  in  his  Quincuple  Psalter,  revived  the  conception 
of  it  that  had  existed  in  the  days  of  Alcuin  and  Theodulf . 
And  that  was  something.  It  signified,  in  effect,  the 
restoration  of  a  forgotten  art  at  that  point  where  it  had 
fallen  into  disuse,  and  imparted  to  it  a  fresh  impetus 
likely  to  terminate  in  undreamt-of  possibilities. 

However,  it  is  abundantly  manifest  that  his  mind  was 

1  Berger  (S.),  Histoiredela  Vulgate,  Nancy,  1893,  p.  15. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  115.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  130-1.  4  Ibid.,  pp.  178-9. 


LEFEVRE'S  AIM  IN  EXPOSITION         89 

not  so  much  concerned  about  the  critical  part  of  his 
task  as  about  the  expositions  which  he  appended  to  the 
several  Psalms.  This  portion  of  his  book  displays  the 
influence  of  the  new  ideas,  the  new  religious  forces — 
or  perhaps  we  ought  to  say,  the  primitive  Christian 
faith  then  in  process  of  revivification — and,  conse- 
quently, is  most  valuable  to  those  who  are  interested 
in  determining  Lefevre's  place  in  religious  history. 
From  it  may  be  gathered  the  reasons  which  have  led 
historians  to  class  him  as  a  reformer.  As  a  means  to 
stimulate  devotion  he  knows  of  no  instrument  more 
effective  than  the  word  of  God,  and,  that  the  knowledge 
of  it  should  be  undiluted  and  pure,  he  rejects  the 
prevalent  method  of  exposition  by  manifold  senses, 
oftentimes  artificial  and  jejune.  He  follows  simply 
what  he  calls  the  spiritual  sense.  According  to  it  the 
practical  value  of  the  Psalms  lies  principally  in  the 
application  of  each  of  them  to  Christ,  or  His  Church, 
or  to  Christ's  dealings  with  His  Church.  Therefore 
Lefevre's  exegetical  method  resolves  itself  into  an 
attempt  to  emphasize  the  evangelical  element  in  Scrip- 
ture and  to  exalt  its  value  as  the  highest  accessible 
source  of  spiritual  comfort  and  admonition.  Indeed, 
in  the  Preface  he  draws  attention  to  this  as  the  chief 
purpose  of  his  labours  : — 

I  must  beseech  Christ,  Who  is  the  beginning-  and 
end  of  all  Psalmody,  that  it  may  not  only  be  accepted, 
but  that  it  may  prove  of  service  to  many  to  attain 
happiness. 

A  modern  French  biographer  of  his1  has  discovered 
the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  only  in  the 
Expositio  Continua  of  Psalm  vi,  where  Lefevre 
says  :  "Da  mihi  salutem  aeternam,  non  quia  dignus 
sim,  non  quia  meritus  sim,  sed  ob  solam  miserationem 
et  gratiam  tuam."  But,  here  it  may  be  remarked  once 
for  all,  with  regard  to  Lefevre,  that  one  is  certain  to 

1  Barnaud,  op.  cit.,  p.  24. 


90  LEFfiVRE  D'£TAPLES 

err  if  one  forgets  that  the  essential  feature  of  his  biblical 
work  is  an  outlook  that  is  always  practical,  not  doc- 
trinal or  theological.  Such  expressions  of  dogma,  if 
ever  made  deliberately  by  him,  are  only  incidental  and 
never  constitute  his  main  pre-occupation.  He  was 
anxious  that  men  should  read  the  Bible  and  ponder  it, 
and  he  strove  to  enable  them  to  do  so  from  the  most 
profitable  point  of  view.  He  was  not  directly  concerned 
with  the  doctrines  they  might  deduce  from  it. 

1508  is  the  date  when  he  began  to  devote  himself 
exclusively  to  this  noble  enterprise.  But  it  must  not 
be  thought  that  his  mind  only  then  turned  to  the  study 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  exposition  of  them. 
For,  before  the  Christian  mystics  engrossed  his  atten- 
tion he  had  produced  (in  1498)  a  little  book  entitled, 
Theologia  vivificans.1  In  it  he  expressed  thoughts 
concerning  the  authority  and  worth  of  Holy  Writ  not 
more  profoundly  true  than  in  strict  accordance  with 
those  he  entertained  in  much  later  years  : — 

The  nearer  one  is  to  the  sun  the  more  light  one  gets. 
For  that  reason  the  greatest  deference  and  authority 
ought  to  be  conferred  upon  the  Holy  Gospels.  .  .  . 
Attention,  piety,  religious  feeling,  deference  and 
humility,  such  as  assist  and  prepare  the  mind,  are 
needed  in  applying  oneself  to  sacred  studies.  Those 
who  possess  not  these  qualifications  are  only  made 
worse  by  the  study  of  holy  things. 

And  yet  Lefevre  laid  aside  this  study  for  ten  years 
and  occupied  himself  with  works  of  piety  which, 
however  valuable  and  serviceable  in  themselves,  were 
not  (in  his  own  expressed  judgment)  to  be  compared  with 
the  Scriptures  !  Observe  that  when  he  resumed  the 
sacred  task  with  the  clear  intention  of  prosecuting  it  he 
began  just  where  he  had  left  off  ten  years  previously  : — 

Truly,  for  a  long  space  of  time,  I  have  pursued 
human  studies  and  scarcely  tasted  of  the  divine  (they, 

1  Ibid.,  p.  22. 


POSSIBLE  INFLUENCE  OF  SAVONAROLA    91 

indeed,  are  venerable,  and  not  to  be  rashly  approached), 
but  so  much  light  appeared  to  shine  forth  from  that 
acquaintance  with  them,  however  distant,  that,  in 
comparison,  human  learning  seemed  to  be  darkness 
itself.1 

What  explanation,  therefore,  shall  adequately  bridge 
that  gap  of  ten  years  ?  There  was  much  at  the  earlier 
date  to  induce  him  to  proceed  with  the  plans  in  his 
mind.  He  had  been  in  Paris2  when  Colet,  on  his  return 
from  Italy,  spent  a  short  time  there,  and  there  is  very 
good  reason  to  believe  that  the  two  became  sufficiently 
intimate  to  exchange  ideas  upon  the  state  of  religion. 
The  great  similarity  of  thought  evident  in  their  works  ; 
their  common  inclination  towards  the  mystical ;  the 
dissatisfaction  they  both  felt  with  the  theological 
attitude  towards  biblical  studies,  and  their  preference 
for  the  practical  rather  than  the  dogmatical  in  religion  ; 
their  concord  in  rejecting  biblical  exposition  by  mani- 
fold senses — these  enable  us  to  see  a  correspondence 
in  ideas  between  them  in  no  sense  accidental  but  the 
outcome  either  of  an  intimate  acquaintanceship,  or 
of  such  a  close  sympathy  as  resulted  from  subjection 
to  the  same  powerful  influences.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  Lefevre  himself  had  been  to  Italy,  certainly  to 
Venice  and  Rome,  probably  also  to  Florence.  Let  it 
also  be  remarked  that  the  striking  personality  of 
Savonarola  impressed  itself  upon  the  imagination  of  the 
French  monarch  and  his  courtiers  ;  and  other  French- 
men, travellers  also  in  Italy,  no  doubt  fell  under  the 
spell  of  the  abnormal  individual  who  had  prophesied 
the  march  of  their  king.  The  Florentine  preacher  was, 
consequently,  a  man  whom  no  Frenchman  was  likely 
to  overlook.    Lefevre,  moreover,  swayed  by  the  charac- 

1  Preface  to  Qirin.  Psalter.  Alluding  to  this  passage  Prof.  E.  Dou- 
mergue  exclaims  :  "  Saluons  avec  respect  cette  lumiere  divine  qui  se 
live  dans  la  nuit  univcrselle  ;  c'est  l'aurore  de  la  Reformation." — 
t.  I,  p.  81. 

'Lefevre  had  returned  to  Parig  by  1494,  and  taken  up  the  office  of 
lecturing. — Graf,  p.  1 !,  note  14. 


92  LEF&VRE  D'£TAPLES 

teristics  of  his  nature  and  experiences,  was  even  more 
liable  to  the  influences  of  the  great  Dominican  than 
Colet.  If  the  latter  remained  silent  as  to  the  name  of 
Savonarola,  and  nevertheless  is  believed  on  very  good 
grounds  to  have  had  direct  relations  with  him,  the  same 
may  likewise  be  reasonably  enough  assumed  with 
regard  to  the  former.  To  what  has  been  so  far  said  it 
may  be  added  that  Lefevre  is  stated  to  have  had 
friendly  intercourse  with  Giovanni  Pico  della  Mirandola1 
with  whom  no  one,  in  the  later  years  of  his  life,  could 
have  been  on  terms  of  friendship,  however  remote,  and 
yet  have  failed  to  learn  something  of  the  man  that  he 
admired  so  devotedly.  Indeed  an  acquaintance  with 
Giovanni  Pico,  during  1492-1494,  precludes  the  possi- 
bility of  Lefevre's  ignorance  either  of  Florence,  of 
Savonarola,  or  of  Savonarola's  teaching,  whilst  it 
almost  certainly  implies  somewhat  of  sympathy  with 
the  great  Dominican's  religious  ideals.  The  cautious 
temperament  of  the  Frenchman  would  sufficiently 
account  for  his  undertaking  the  study  of  the  Scriptures 
(so  ardently  advocated  by  the  Florentine  preacher)  at 
that  time  when  there  was  every  reason  to  believe  that 
a  General  Council  would  be  convened  by  a  French  king 
which  might,  in  all  likelihood,  support  the  recently 
broached  religious  aspirations,  and  for  his  suddenly 
abandoning  it  when  the  catastrophe  in  Florence 
manifested  the  dangers  of  such  a  course.  This  con- 
viction that  Lefevre  was  influenced  by  Savonarola  rests, 
it  is  true,  upon  conjecture,  but  there  are  many  things, 
if  not  to  corroborate  it,  at  any  rate  to  justify  it.  For 
instance,  his  insistence  on  the  Catholicity  of  the  Church 
as  opposed  to  any  absorption  of  it  by  the  dominant 
"  Roman  "  Church  is  quite  after  the  spirit  of  the 
Dominican.  In  the  Preface  to  the  Quincn-plex  Psal- 
terium  he  terms  the  Roman  Church  "  Ecclesia  gallis 
transalpina,"  and  the  Gallican  Church  "  Ecclesia 
cisalpina."  It  is,  however,  in  the  Adverte  to  Psalm  xlvii 

1  Graf,  Zeitschrift,  etc.,  p.  9,  note  10  ;  Delaruelle,  p.  47. 


LEFfiVRE'S  VIEW  OF  CATHOLICITY       93 

(x'viii),  v.  2,  that  he  delivers  himself  in  bold  words  little 
moderated  by  his  habitual  caution1 : — 

But  thou  wilt  say  :  Why  is  the  Church  called  latera 
aquilonis,  the  sides  of  the  north?  Because  nothing 
is  hid  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  Peter,  indeed,  placed 
the  Church  upon  a  rock,  that  is,  on  Christ,  first  at 
Antioch,  afterwards  at  Rome,  both  of  which  lie  to  the 
north.  But  what  then  ?  Shall  we  call  the  Church  the 
Church  of  Rome?  By  all  means,  but  confer  still 
greater  honour  on  it,  and  call  it  the  Church  of  the 
Rock.  For  it  was  said  to  Peter  :  Thou  art  Peter,  and 
on  this  rock  I  will  build  My  Church.  It  was  not  said, 
on  Rome.  ...  If  any  person  mention  to  me  a  Church 
of  Antiochus,  of  Alexander,  of  Romulus  or  Remus,  I 
give  it  no  recognition,  because  it  obscures,  covers, 
hides  the  true  title,  the  title  of  My  Lord,  My  God,  the 
Great  King.  If  mention  be  made  of  the  Church  of 
the  Rock,  the  Church  of  Christ,  forthwith  I  recognize 
it.  Yea,  and  he  who  terms  it  the  Church  of  Peter 
uses  a  lower  title  than  he  who  calls  it  the  Church  of 
the  Rock.  For  it  is  not  Peter's,  unless  it  be  that  of  a 
deputy,  a  steward,  a  proxy.  But  it  is  the  Rock's,  as 
that  of  the  rightful  Head  of  the  Household,  the  right- 
ful King.  If  Peter  were  asked  about  its  title,  he 
would  give  it  its  true  name  and  no  other  (non  alieno)  : 
he,  in  heaven,  is  my  witness  !  The  true  name  makes 
all  things  one,  but  he  who  speaks  of  the  Church  of 
Antioch,  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  splits  up  this  title, 
and  as  unity  brings  forth  the  love  of  all,  so  division 
breeds  dissensions. 

In  thus  maintaining  the  inherence  of  Catholicity  in 
the  Church,  though  opposing  the  curialist  determina- 
tion of  it,  Lefevre  was  at  one  with  the  eminent  French 
conciliarists  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  indeed  con- 
stituted himself  the  mouthpiece  of  the  thoughtful 
amongst  his  contemporaries  of  the  French  and  other 

1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that,  though  various  passages  of  the  Quincuplex 
Psalterium  are  marked  out  for  reprobation  in  Quiroga  (Gaspar,  Card,  et 
Archiep.  Tolet.  Hispan.  gener.  Inquis.),  Index  Librorum  Expurg., 
Salmuri,  MDCI,  the  above  is  not  one  of  them. 


94  LEFfcVRE  D'ETAPLES 

nations.  But  he  also  interpreted  thereby  the  mind  of 
Savonarola  towards  the  close  of  that  great  man's 
career.  For  both,  the  Church  of  Christ  was  not  a 
denomination,  either  racial  or  sectarian,  but  a  realiza- 
tion of  the  brotherhood  of  man.  To  a  certain  extent 
it  is  true  that  Lefevre's  ideal  found  itself,  later  on,  at 
issue  with  the  strongest  current  of  the  age.  Nationali- 
ties, in  the  modern  sense,  were  springing  into  existence 
and  trying  their  strength,  and  national  tendencies  in 
religion  were  destined  to  furnish  a  powerful  impetus 
to  the  reformation  movement.  Still,  the  fact  remained 
that  nationalism  was  not  the  highest  ideal  in  religion 
as  Lefevre  discerned  it.  Indeed,  it  seems  likely  enough 
that  this  remarkable  French  Christian  never  could  have 
comprehended  the  essence  of  the  modern  claim, 
however  fundamentally  true,  that  a  National  Church 
can  constitute  an  independent  part  of  the  Universal 
or  Catholic  Church.1  It  is  also  very  probable  that  the 
development  of  this  conception  of  Church  politjr  in  the 
closing  decade  of  his  life,  confused  him  and  repelled 
him  from  active  co-operation  with  others  disposed 
to  entertain  it,  whilst  his  sympathies  were  largely  with 
their  efforts  towards  reform. 

It  is  worth  pointing  out  here  that  this  Catholic 
instinct,  so  strongly  present  in  one  who  was  at  once 
a  sincere  friend  of  reform  and  a  pioneer  in  critical 
studies,  as  he  understood  them,  brings  Lefevre  into  a 
kinship  strangely  close  with  those  great  French  scholars 
and  critics  of  to-day  whose  general  attitude  towards 
Church  unity  is  on  the  whole  so  similar.  We  wonder, 
sometimes  impatiently,  why  the  "  Modernists "  do 
not  leave  the  communion  of  Rome  :  their  steadfastness 
is  attributed  sometimes,  it  is  to  be  feared,  to  unworthy 
motives.  But  the  lesson  from  their  life  as  well  as  from 
Lefevre's  is  surely  that  a  passion  for  sincerity  and  truth 
in  religious  teaching  and  practice  does  not  necessarily 

1  Even  his  philosophical  studies  were  undertaken  for  the  good  of  the 
Church  considered  as  a  Catholic  entity. — See  Delaruelle,  p.  53. 


SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY  AT  PARIS        95 

involve,  and  can  be  maintained  quite  apart  from,  that 
tendency  to  "  split "  which  has  disintegrated  and 
weakened  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation. 

How  far  the  considerable  body  of  ardent  admirers 
who  gathered  around  Lefevre  assimilated  the  ideas  on 
religion  and  cognate  matters  that  were  familiar  to  him 
is  not  easy  to  ascertain.  His  caution,  his  dread  of  rash 
enterprises,1  withheld  him  most  usually  from  expressing 
himself  with  the  bold  emphasis  required  to  inspire 
disciples.  That  the  general  principles  of  Christian 
morality  enunciated  by  him  were  listened  to,  and  had 
powerful  influence  over  their  minds,  can  be  readily  seen 
in  many  ways.2  But  his  own  distinctive  opinions  re- 
mained almost  entirely  hidden  in  his  heart  and  only 
appeared  in  rare  outbursts  until  comparatively  late  in 
his  life-time.  His  position  as  a  religious  teacher  in 
regard  to  the  University  of  Paris  was  in  every  respect 
similar  to  Colet's  at  Oxford,  and  what  has  been  already 
said  of  the  state  of  biblical  studies  amongst  the  acade- 
mics of  the  English  University  might  be  nearly  repeated 
concerning  the  French.  The  University  of  Paris  and 
the  Theological  Faculty  (the  Sorbonne)  clung  to  their 
medisevalism  with  tenacity,  and  both,  but  especially 
the  latter — being  dominated  almost  entirely  by  the 
friars — accentuated  their  desire  for  the  maintenance 
of  traditions  already  grown  obsolete.3  The  type  of 
theology  in  favour  with  these  persons  was  that  taught 
in  the  College  of  Montaigu  under  John  Standonee,  or 
Standonck,  which  has  been  rendered  famous  by  several 

1  Graf,  p.  13.  Erasmus  to  Budaeus  :  "  Faber  ille  natura  mitis  ac 
blandus." — Op.,  Ill,  301D,  dated  (in  Leclerc)  from  Louvain,  22nd  Feb., 
1518. 

2  Delaruelle,  p.  54:  "  Par  son  enseignement  et  par  ses  Merits  il  a  sans 
nul  doute  exerce  une  influence  tres  notable,  mais  dont  on  ne  saurait  dire 
qu'elle  fut  bonne  de  tous  points." 

3  Lavisse,  Hist,  de  France,  V,  145  :  "  Mais  l'Universite'  et  la  Sorbonne, 
qui  auraient  du  Strc  au  premier  rang  des  reformateurs,  s'attardaient  dans 
de  vieilles  formules  ou  dans  des  querelles  miserables  de  privileges,  ne 
songeaient  qu'a  defendre  leurs  prerogatives,  et  s'unissaient  aux  ordres 
r^ligicux  anim6s  du  meme  6goisme." 


96  LEFtVRE  D'fiTAPLES 

remarkable  particulars  :  the  complaints  and  irony  of 
Erasmus  in  one  of  his  colloquies  named  Ichthyophagia 
(Fish-diet),  wherein,  amongst  other  censures,  he  de- 
clares that  the  very  walls  cogitated  on  theology;1  and 
the  gibes  of  Rabelais,  who,  however,  made  Erasmus's 
censures  his  own,  for  he  himself  had  no  experience  of  this 
College."  Standonck  appears  to  have  been  an  upright 
and  honourable,  if  rather  austere  and  ascetic,  man,  and 
to  have  befriended  Erasmus  at  a  time  when  he  needed  a 
friend  badly.3  Some  years  later  John  Calvin  was  edu- 
cated at  this  College.'  The  unending  trivialities  over 
which  Erasmus  yawned  in  this  stronghold  of  Scotistic 
theology  cannot  have  been  less  distasteful  to  Lefevre, 
but  they  represented  the  intellectual  food  of  no  small 
part  of  those  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  With 
their  disputations  he  had  no  sympathy  ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  their  arguments  and  exercises  created  for 
him  no  offence.  The  latter  were,  in  fact,  outside  the 
scope  of  his  contemplation.  But  in  a  truly  evangelical 
spirit  he  felt  impelled  to  urge,  whilst  not  attempting 
designedly  to  controvert  the  official  theology  or  theo- 
logical definitions  of  his  time,  the  supreme  importance 
to  every  Christian  of  a  study  of  Holy  Scripture  : — 

I  have  frequently  visited  monasteries,  but  those 
persons  I  found  ignorant  of  this  delight  I  considered 
entirely  unaware  of  the  true  food  for  the  mind.  For, 
Spirits  live  by  every  word  that  proceeds  from  the 
mouth  of  God,  and  what  are  those  words5  but  divine 
utterances?  Therefore  men  of  that  kind  have  dead 
spirits.  And  from  the  time  in  which  pious  studies 
ceased  monasteries  have  perished,  devotion  vanished, 

1  Colloq.  Desii.  Eras.  Rot.  (London,  1676),  p.  307.  Erasmus,  in  an 
ep.  of  1497  to  Thomas  Grey,  gives  an  amusing  but  condemnatory  de- 
scription of  the  theology  he  means. —  Op.,  Ill,  76D-77F. 

*  Nisard,  p.  20;  Fleury  (Jean),  Rabelais  et  ses  oeuvres,  Paris,  1877, 
I,  259. 

3  Nichols,  I,  27,  104-7,  272)  3°9- 

*  Beza,  Life  of  Calvin,  in  Calvin's  Tracts,  etc.,  trans,  by  Beveridge 
(1844),  p.  xxi. 

8  I.e.,  Holy  Scripture. 


LEFfiVRE'S  PUPILS  AND  FOLLOWERS     97 

religion  became  extinct,  spiritual  things  have  been 
given  up  for  earthly — heaven  exchanged  for  earth — 
an  unhappy  sort  of  trading. 

No  doubt  he  had  amongst  his  admirers  and  pupils, 
in  those  days  before  he  came  to  reside  in  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Germain-des-Pres,  many  such  as  Matthew  Rigman 
Philesius  who  devoted  his  mental  powers  to  the  eager 
pursuit  only  of  the  instructions  Lefevre  gave  in  secular 
learning.  Others,  like  Beatus  Rhenanus,  while  imi- 
tating Philesius,  imbibed  perhaps  no  inconsiderable 
portion  of  the  master's  spirit  in  things  religious.  Some, 
however,  probably  never  very  numerous,  though  men 
of  that  stamp  who  leave  the  impress  of  their  character 
upon  their  own  and  succeeding  generations,  were  at 
this  stage  his  zealous  and  enthusiastic  adherents.  Pro- 
minent amongst  these  were  Briconnet  and  Farel, 
already  named,  Gerard  Roussel,  Michel  d'Arande,  and 
Clichtoue,1  of  whom  most  drew  back,  in  another  decade, 
like  their  preceptor,  from  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
because,  though  keenly  anxious  for  reform,  they  could 
not  altogether  approve  of  the  shape  it  was  assuming. 
Over  these,  the  power  of  Lefevre's  gentle,  almost 
apostolic,  character  extended  itself  to  the  full ; 2  they 
thought  his  thoughts,  and  some  of  them,  when  the 

1  Graf,  pp.  13-6,  explains  the  intimacy  that  existed  between  Lefevre 
and  Josse  Clichtoue,  who  came  from  a  district  close  to  Lefevre's  birth- 
place. It  was  Clichtoue  that  introduced  him  to  the  Briconnet  family, 
a  service  of  inestimable  value  to  Lefevre.  See  Graf,  p.  14,  note  24,  where 
the  following  quotation  occurs  from  the  works  of  Hier.  Papiensis  : 
"  Quis  referat  gloriam  Clichtovei  quae  resultat  in  Fabro,  dum  ipse 
vigilias  omnes  conceptionesque  Fabri  stylo  elegantissimo  reponit  in 
scriptis  ?  ut,  cum  illi  in  studiis  omnibus  fidentissimus  sit  Achates,  qui 
Fabrum  diligit  ingratissimus,  si  non  amet  Clichtoveum." 

2  Clichtoue,  in  subsequent  years,  gave  a  proof  of  the  affection  he  still 
bore  to  his  old  master.  For  he  was  himself  an  ally  of  Beda's  when  that 
person  wrote  his  book  Against  the  Clandestine  Lutherans,  but  sup- 
pressed (apparently  for  Lefevre's  sake)  the  name  of  Lefevre  and  those  of 
his  friends. — Graf,  p.  64,  and  note  204,  quoting  Bedae  Apologia  adv. 
clandest.  Lutheranos,  f.  16:  "Ego  .  .  .  post  Jod.  Clichtoveum,  qui 
tamen  nominibus  in  gratiam  magistri  et  per  modestiam  pepercerat,  pauca 
in  confutatione  adjeci,"  etc. 


98  lef£vre  d£taples 

opportunity  presented  itself,  laboured*to  give  effect  to 
his  ideals.  And  there  was  Bude,  the  erudite  Hellenist, 
who,  if  we  can  rely  on  the  testimony  of  one  who  knew 
him,1  learned  mathematics  from  Lefevre.  He  always 
evinced  a  tender  and  affectionate  regard  for  the 
philosophic  Christian  teacher ;  but  he  passed  from  his 
lectures  in  philosophy  and  mathematics  into  the  wider 
atmosphere  of  the  Classical  Renaissance  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that,  though  retaining  enough  religious  sympathy 
with  him  to  carp  and  rail  (a  procedure  the  master  never 
countenanced)  at  the  prevalent  abuses  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,2  yet  he  really  failed  to  comprehend  Lefevre's 
attitude  to  these  things  and  the  scope  of  his  plans. 
Nevertheless,  when  nearly  a  couple  of  generations  had 
come  and  gone,  and  old  age  lay  upon  him  heavily,  last  of 
that  little  band  which  had  called  the  fitaplois  preceptor, 
Bude  returned  wondrously  close  to  the  spirit  of  his 
friend  and  teacher.  The  humanist,  always  Christian, 
now  began  to  be  a  Christian  only,  an  enlightened  one 
truly  who  possessed  such  stores  of  knowledge,  garnered 
from  his  profound  study  of  the  Ancients  and  his 
acquaintance  with  the  original  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  helped  to  the  full  understanding  of  what 
he  read  in  the  sacred  pages.  Passed  from  Hellenism  to 
Christianity,  from  Athens  to  Calvary,  from  Hercules 
to  Christ,  the  one  thought  uppermost  with  him  is  the 
loving  Redeemer.  He  leads  the  way  to  the  sources 
of  religion,  and  he  finds  them  in  the  Bible.  The  voice 
is  the  voice  of  Bude,  but  the  words,  the  thoughts,  the 
religious  conceptions,  are  those  of  Lefevre.3 

1  Louis  Le  Roy  cited  by  Dr.  Delaruelle,  p.  87,  who,  however,  rejects 
the  statement.  I  am  not  confident  that  Delaruelle  is  right  in  doing  so. 
See  Bude"  (Eugene  de),  Viede  Guillaume  Bude,  Paris,  1884,  p.  16. 

2  Delaruelle,  pp.  181-9. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  194-7:  "  Le  christianisme  de  Bud£,  tel  qu'il  s'y  cxprime, 
n'est  pas  une  religion  de  savant  ni  de  philosophe  .  .  .  c'est  a  la  lecture 
des  Ecritures  que  Bude'  nous  ramene  .  .  .  il  en  fait  la  base  et  lefondement 
de  l'etude  de  la  sagesse."  ..."  C'est  un  peu  l'histoire  de  Lefevre 
d'£taples  et  de  ses  premiers  disciples.  Le  ton  de  Bud6  me  semble  cor- 
responds ici  a  celui  qui  regnait  parmi  eux,  avant  que  l'£glise  ne  se  fut 
mise  en  travers  du  mouvement." 


CHAPTER  V 

DEMANDS   FOR   ECCLESIASTICAL   REFORM    (1512) 
BIBLICAL   STUDIES   AT   PARIS   AND   CAMBRIDGE 

Lefevre  d'£taples  once  remarked  to  his  pupil, 
Guillaume  Farel  :  "  God  will  soon  renovate  the  world, 
and  you  will  live  to  see  it."1  Whether  the  Frenchman 
intended  his  words  for  a  prophetical  utterance  or  not, 
it  is  at  least  certain  that,  at  the  time  when  he  spoke 
them,  namely,  in  1512,  he  was  but  voicing  the  desires 
of  many  hearts  in  western  Europe.  Reform,  in  fact, 
was  then  a  topic  upon  many  a  tongue  :  the  Pope  him- 
self had  summoned  a  Council  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
cussing it.  Great  were  the  expectations  formed  regard- 
ing the  beneficial  changes  which  would  issue  from  its 
deliberations.  As  to  the  certainty  of  the  Lateran 
Council  being  assembled  at  all  there  was  by  no  means 
the  same  confidence.  Suspicions  were  abroad  that  when 
the  pretended  summons  had  rendered  the  schemes  of 
the  Cardinals  nugatory,  the  whole  project  would  be 
abandoned.2 

But  before  this  important  Council  met,  the  Convoca- 
tion of  the  Province  of  Canterbury  had  assembled  in 
St.  Paul's  on  6th  February:   Archbishop  Warham  had 

1  Goguel  (G.),  Histoirede  Guillaume  Farel,  Montbeliard,  1873,  P-  24- 

2  See  the  correspondence  between  Erasmus  and  his  friend  in  London, 
Ammonius,  during  151 1-1512,  especially  the  two  epp.  of  the  latter  given 
in  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  n  ie  and  1 13c  (27th  October,  and  8th  November,  151 1), 
and  Erasmus's  of  19th  February,  15 12  (Allen,  I,  501),  in  which  he  reports 
that  he  had  heard  that  the  royal  envoy  had  been  recalled,  since  the  Pope 
had  postponed  the  General  Council  to  November. 

99 


ioo   DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

appointed  Dean  Colet  to  preach  the  opening  sermon. 
This  notable  discourse  has  been  fitly  termed,  "  the 
overture  in  the  great  drama  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion."1 It  must  be  acknowledged  to  have  been  a  fearless 
pronouncement  on  behalf  of  reform — the  expression 
of  the  Church's  mind  upon  it  ;  in  brief,  a  demand,  a 
challenge,  to  put  right  what  was  wrong  and  to  restore 
life  to  an  all  but  dead  Christianity.  Convocation  itself 
had  been  summoned  to  deal  with  heresy,  for  this,  far 
from  becoming  extinct  under  the  strong  repressive 
measures  taken  against  it,  had  sprung  up  into  new  life.2 
Even  Ammonius,  in  a  letter  of  8th  November  to 
Erasmus,  had  referred  contemptuously  to  the  increase 
of  the  heretics.3  In  short,  a  serious  condition  of  affairs 
had  been  reached,  and  some  better  and  more  successful 
plan  of  action  than  mere  individual  efforts  was  required 
to  meet  the  occasion.  Convocation,  therefore,  had  the 
task  before  it  of  devising  some  means  of  stemming  the 
rising  tide  of  revolt.  At  this  juncture,  it  is  true,  heresy 
(i.e.,  Lollardy)  was  represented  only  by  the  unlearned, 
uncultured  and  obscure,  as  Ammonius's  sneer  correctly 
enough  indicates.  But  the  Lollards  did  not,  on  the 
one  hand,  constitute  the  gravest  source  of  danger  to 
the  Church's  peace  and  unity,  nor  did  they,  on  the  other 
hand,  form  that  ever-increasing  body  of  persons  whose 
criticisms  and  outspoken  censures  would  have  sooner  or 
later  to  be  answered.  The  Colets,  the  Mores,  the 
Linacres,  Warhams,  and  Charnocks,  and  their  con- 
tinental friends,  were  a  very  different  kind  of  men  from 
"  the  brother  of  my  man  Thomas."  These  were  they 
who,  without  ceasing  to  be  loyal  sons  of  the  Church, 
held  opinions  about  the  state  of  religion  which  demanded 
consideration   from   the   chief   rulers   of   the   Church. 

1  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  178. 

2  Gairdner,  Lollardy,  I,  275  ;  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  p.  223. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  113B  :  "  Lignorum  precium  auctum  esse  non  miror, 
multi  quotidie  haeretici  holocaustum  nobis  praebent,  plures  tamen 
succrescunt :  quin  et  frater  germanus  mei  Thomae,  stipes  verius  quam 
homo,  sectam  (diis  placet)  et  ipse  instituit  et  discipulos  habet." 


INCREASE  OF  HERESY  101 

And  these  men  did  not  lack  powerful  support ;  they 
were,  in  fact,  merely  the  spokesmen  of  large  numbers 
of  their  compatriots.  So  far  as  England  was  concerned, 
most  of  the  bishops  and  superior  dignitaries  recognized 
the  need  of  reform,  and  they  desired,  with  more  or  less 
earnestness,  according  to  their  several  dispositions, 
some  plan  which  would  bring  about  an  improvement 
in  religious  affairs.  Wishing  and  acting  are  not,  how- 
ever, the  same  thing,  and,  consequently,  whilst  reforms 
had  been  frequently  mooted,  no  one  dared  to  lay  his 
finger  openly  on  the  sore  spots  of  ecclesiasticism.1  But 
when  Warham  selected  Colet  to  preach  the  opening 
sermon  of  Convocation,  he  must  have  forecast  the  effect 
of  his  choice — that  the  truth  would  be  for  once  fearlessly 
uttered.  Colet  and  he  had  been  intimately  acquainted 
with  one  another  for  many  years,  and  the  character, 
aspirations,  and  opinions  of  each  were  fulfy  understood 
and  appreciated  by  the  other.  Colet  was  no  Lollard. 
It  is  true  that  Lollards  came  to  his  sermons  in  St. 
Paul's  because  he  preached  pure  doctrine.2  He  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  Lollard  position,  and  his  name,  in 
fact,  appears  on  the  list  of  judges  of  heretics  in  the 
prosecutions  of  the  previous  year.  For  all  that,  he 
occasionally  interfered  in  their  favour,3  and  not  only 
read  their  books,  but  approved  of  a  great  amount  of 
what  he  found  therein.*  Such  a  man  knew  that  there 
was  a  great  deal  of  justification  for  Lollard  and  heretical 
doctrines  in  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  When  so 
many  abuses  existed  in  the  Church,  and  Gospel  teaching 
had  become  debased,  dissatisfaction  and  want  of  real 
spiritual  guidance  were  bound  to  send  the  laity  upon  a 
search,  sometimes  erroneously  conducted,  after  religious 
truth.     If  Lollardy  and  heresy  were  on  the  increase, 

1  Archbishop  Morton,  in  a  previous  generation,  had  tried,  but  only 
with  temporary  success,  to  improve  the  condition  of  things  in  the 
Church  of  England — Gairdner,  Lollardy,  I,  269-73. 

2  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  p.  222. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  357E. 
lIbi! ..  460A. 


102    DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

the  blame  fell  on  the  Church  who,  for  all  her  noble 
heritage,  could  not  be  said  to  have  fulfilled  her  holy 
mission.  The  high  ideals  of  the  Dionysian  Hierarchies 
differed  widely  from  the  realities  of  the  English  Church 
at  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century.  All 
this  Colet  had  seen  and  felt  and  pondered.  Now  his 
opportunity  had  come  for  plain  speaking  in  the  ears 
of  the  Church.  To  a  Convocation  assembled  to  cope 
with  heresy  outside  the  "  men  of  the  Church,"  he 
boldly  affirmed  the  necessity  of  conducting  the  improve- 
ment of  affairs  from  within. 

Entering  the  pulpit,  he  began1: — 

Ye  are  come  to  gether  to  daye,  fathers  and  ryghte 
wyse  men  to  entre  councell  :  in  the  whiche,  what  ye 
wyll  do,  and  what  matters  ye  wyll  hondell,  yet  we 
understande  nat.  But  we  wysshe,  that  ones  re- 
membring  your  name  and  profession,  ye  wold  mynde 
the  reformation  of  the  churches  matter.  For  hit  was 
neuer  more  nede.  And  the  state  of  the  churche  dyd 
neuer  desyre  more  youre  endeuours.  For  the  spouse 
of  Christe,  the  churche,  whom  ye  wolde  shulde  be 
without  spotte  or  wryncle,  is  made  foule  and  euyll 
fauored,  as  saith  Esaias  :  The  faith  full  cite  is  made  an 
harlotte ;  and  as  saythe  Hieremias  :  She  hath  done 
lechery  with  many  louers  :  wherby  she  hath  concerned 
many  sedes  of  wyckednes,  and  dayly  bryngethe 
forthe  uery  foule  frute.  Wherfore  I  came  hyther  to 
daye  fathers,  to  warne  you,  that  of  this  your  councell, 
with  all  your  mynde,  ye  thinke  upon  the  reformation 
of  the  churche. 

He  announced  his  text  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  : — 

Be  you  not  conformed  to  this  worlde  :  but  be  you 
reformed  in  the  newnes  of  your  understandynge,  that 

1  The  Latin  sermon  is  given  in  the  forefront  of  the  App.  by  Knight, 
Colet,  pp.  239-50.  This  is  followed  immediately  by  an  old  English 
translation,  printed  the  same  year  (1512)  by  Thomas  Berthelet,  the 
King's  Printer.  As  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  made  by  Colet  himself  the 
extracts  from  the  sermon  quoted  above  are  taken  from  this  version. 


COLET'S  CONVOCATION  SERMON        103 

ye  may  proue  what  is  the  good  wyll  of  God  well 
pleasing  and  perfect. 

These  words  Colet  assumed  as  addressed  "  most 
chiefly  unto  pristes  and  bysshops." 

He  divided  his  text  into  two  parts,  in  its  application 
to  the  clergy  :    conformation  and  reformation. 

Conformation  to  the  world  he  interpreted  as  resting 
principally  in  four  things — devilish  pride,  carnal  con- 
cupiscence, worldly  covetousness,  secular  business,  all 
which  he  maintained  were  to  be  found  "  in  the  churche 
and  men  of  the  churche." 

Many  ecclesiastics  sought  high  dignities  with  eager- 
ness, and  when  they  obtained  them  became  proud  and 
haughty,  forgetting — 

that  the  maistry  in  the  churche  is  none  other 
thvnge  than  a  ministration  :  and  the  hygh  dignitie  in 
a  man  of  the  churche  to  be  none  other  thing  than  a 
meke  seruice. 

According  to  him,  the  second  evil,  carnal  concupi- 
scence, was  one  which  had  grown  to  unusual  and 
lamentable  proportions. 

The  third  evil,  covetousness,  roused  him  to  a 
passionate  outburst  against  the  corruptness  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  and  the  greed  of  the  clergy.1 

Under  the  fourth  head,  Colet  spoke  on  an  even  more 
effective  and  personal  subject,  viz.,  the  secular  occupa- 
tions of  the  clergy.  From  this  evil  of  the  clergy's 
association  with  secular  business  arose  great  misfortune 
to  the  priesthood  and  the  Church.  The  laity,  too,  when 
they  beheld  the  clergy  abandon  their  spiritual  duties 
and  occupy  themselves  with  earthly  things,  were 
thereat  scandalized  and  suffered  spiritual  injury.2 

1  His  words  of  censure  are  not  stronger  than  those  of  Erasmus.  The 
terseness  of  the  humanist's  denunciations  increases  their  pungency  and 
imparts  to  them  an  acrid  humour  which  is  absent  from  the  Dean's 
reproofs.  Erasmus,  indeed,  declared  that  the  priests  would  do  nothing 
unless  they  got  a  fee,  since  they  were  obsessed  by  a  passion  for  gain. — 
Adagia,  Eras.  0/).,  II,  338A-F. 

2  Fox  and  W'olsey  were  among  the  auditory.     As  to  the  former,  he 


104   DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

Colet,  having  concluded  his  discourse  upon  the  first 
portion  of  his  text,  proceeded  to  the  second — to  the 
subject  of  reformation. 

In  demanding  ecclesiastical  reform,  he  advised  no 
promulgation  of  new  laws.  There  were  laws  enough, 
if  only  they  were  obeyed.  Let  the  laws  already  in 
existence  be  rehearsed  and  put  in  force.  The  first 
ordinances  that  ought  to  be  rendered  effective  were  those 
directed  against  easy  admittance  into  holy  orders. 
Holiness  and  uprightness  of  life  should  be  reckoned 
the  chief  requisites  in  a  candidate.  Then  ought  to 
follow  the  laws  that  would  bestow  benefices  upon 
worthy  priests.  From  lack  of  observance  of  these 
regulations 

hit  happenethe  nowe  a  dayes  that  boyes  for  olde 
men,  fooles  for  wise  men,  euyll  for  good  do  reigne  and 
rule. 

The  decrees  against  simony,  non-residence,  unworthy 
behaviour  and  haunting  of  taverns  ;  the  statutes  which 
regulated  the  conduct  of  monks,  canons,  and  religious 
men;  the  ordinances  which  governed  the  election  of 
bishops,  and  appointed  that  they  must  reside  in  their 
respective  dioceses,  that  they  must  fulfil  the  pastoral 
and  fatherly  oversight  of  their  people,  and  dispose 
worthily  of  the  emoluments  of  their  office — all  these 
laws  should  be  rehearsed  and  put  in  execution.  The 
amendment  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  was  one  of  the 
matters  dear  to  the  heart  of  Colet,  who,  at  this  singular 
opportunity,  did  not  fail  to  urge  it  upon  the  attention  of 
Convocation.  He  passed  from  the  thought  of  the 
Church  courts  to  the  great  assemblies  in  which  the 
mind  of  the  Universal  Church  can  be  most  fittingly 
expressed,  and  asserted  that  the  frequent  convention 

has  been  described  as  a  "  typical  example  of  the  clerical  statesman  of 
his  time." — Nichols,  I,  391.  In  the  words  of  Colet  above  referred  to, 
there  seems  a  premonitory  echo  of  the  historic  exclamation  of  the 
renowned  Wolsey  when  he  lay  dying  at  Leicester — Gait,  Wolsey,  p.  197. 


NEED   OF  REFORM  105 

of  provincial  councils  for  the  correction  of  defects  in 
the  Church  was  greatly  to  be  desired.1 

He  had  spoken,  he  said,  of  the  reformation  only  as 
it  had  to  do  with  the  clergy,  because 

the  clergies  and  spiritual  part  ones  reformed  in 
the  churche,  than  may  we  with  a  iuste  order  procede 
to  the  reformation  of  the  lay  parte  :  the  which  truely 
wyll  be  verve  easy  to  do  :  if  we  fyrst  be  reformed. 

He  therefore  ended  his  sermon  with  a  candid  ex- 
hortation to  the  present  assembly  of  ecclesiastics  : — 

Suffre  nat  fathers,  this  your  so  greatte  a  gatherynge 
to  departe  in  vayne.   Suffre  nat  this  your  congregation 
to  slyppe  for  naughte.     Truly  ye  are  gethered  often 
tymes  to  gether  (but  by  youre  fauoure  to  speke  the 
trouth)    yet    I    se    nat    what    frute    cometh    of    your 
assemblyng,  namely  to  the  churche.     Go  ye  nowe  in 
the  Spirite  that  ye  haue  called  on,  that  by  the  helpe 
of  hit,  ye  maye  in  this  your  councell  fynd  out,  decerne, 
and  ordeyne,  those  thynges  that  may  be  profitable  to 
the  churche,  prayse  vnto  you,  and  honour  vnto  God. 
Unto  whom  be  all  honoure  and  glorye,  for  euermore. 
Amen. 
It  was  bravely  spoken.    The  sermon  was  printed  and 
circulated  in  Latin  and  English  during  the  same  year,2 
and  thus  addressed  a  much  more  numerous  auditory 
than  that  before  which  it  was  originally  delivered.    If 
the  statements  contained  in  it  had  been  unfounded  or 
untrue,  ample  amends  could  have  been  demanded  of 
Colet  for  the  general  accusations  he  had  uttered.    But, 
beyond  all  question,   examples  of  simony,   evil  life, 
taverning  and  rioting,  promotions  for  services  rendered 
in  diplomacy  and  other  purely  secular  business,  corrup- 
tion in  the  courts,  scandalous  pluralities,  and  many 

1  "  There  neuer  hapneth  nothyng  more  hurtefull  to  the  churche  of 
Christ,  than  the  lacke  both  of  councell  general  and  prouinciall."  This 
was  the  common  opinion  of  the  age,  although  opposed  by  the  curialists. 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  it  was  Luther's  attitude  towards  General 
Councils  which  decided  the  Diet  of  Worms  against  him. 

2  Knight,  Colet,  pp.  1 60,  174  ;  Seebohm,  p.  250. 


106   DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

other  abuses,  existed  in  far  too  large  a  number  to  admit 
of  the  possibility  of  an  assault  upon  the  accuracy  of 
Colet's  incriminations. 

A  few  months  later,  in  May,  1512,  the  much  desired 
General  Council  at  length  assembled  in  the  Lateran. 
On  3rd  May  a  noble  procession  of  cardinals,  patriarchs, 
archbishops,  bishops,  and  famous  doctors,  besides 
illustrious  princes  and  ambassadors,  accompanied 
Julius  II  to  the  opening  ceremony.  There  seemed  now 
to  be  a  prospect  that  those  reforms  which  all  good 
Christian  men  were  praying  for  would  be  seriously 
taken  in  hand.  With  the  intention  of  explaining  the 
nature  of  the  hopes  that  existed  throughout  Christen- 
dom, Aegidius  of  Viterbo,  the  learned  General  of  the 
Augustinian  Order,  ascended  the  pulpit  and  preached 
a  sermon  quite  as  bold  as  Colet's,  though  he  garnished 
it  with  eloquent  trope  and  apostrophe,  and  expressed 
his  meaning  in  guarded  language.  Yet  the  dominant 
note  of  both  discourses  was  the  same — correction  of 
abuses  should  begin  within  the  ecclesiastical  body. 
Even  Colet's  eagerness  for  the  frequent  convention  of 
Councils  found  an  echo  in  the  oration  of  Aegidius1 ; 
the  same  insistent  adjuration  of  their  hearers  to  accom- 
plish the  work  of  reform  was  present  in  both  utterances. 

And  thus  the  Augustinian  General  began  : — 

For  well-nigh  twenty  years,  so  far  as  I  was  able  and 
my  slender  powers  allowed  me,  I  have  been  expound- 
ing to  almost  the  whole  of  Italy  the  Gospels,  the  pro- 
phetical books,  and  the  Revelation  of  John  concerning 
the  triumph  of  the  Church.  Very  often  I  have 
declared  that  those  who  were  listening  to  me  would 
behold  tremendous  commotions  and  disasters  in  the 
Church,  and  then,  after  a  while,  would  observe  her 
correction."      It    now    appears    suitable    that    he    who 

1  "  Whenever  there  has  been  a  suspension  of  councils  the  Church  has 
been  deserted  by  her  Divine  Bridegroom  and  the  words  of  the  Gospel 
have  been  fulfilled,  '  Yet  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  Me.'  " — 
Labb.  et  Coss.,  Lutetiae  Parisiorum,  1672,  torn.  XIV,  21A. 

*  These  words  are  more  than  reminiscent  of  Savonarola,  inasmuch  a3 


SERMON  BEFORE  LATERAN  COUNCIL  107 

used  to  declare  that  these  things  would  happen  should 
bear  witness  to  them  when  they  have  occurred,  and 
that  he  who  so  often  cried,  "  Mine  eyes  shall  see  the 
times  of  salvation,"  should,  on  this  present  occasion, 
exclaim  :  "  Mine  eyes  have  seen  the  salutary  and  holy 
beginning  of  the  longed-for  restoration."  Only  be 
thou  here,  oh  Renovator  of  the  world,  Offspring  of 
a  Divine  Father,  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  mortal 
men  !  and  grant  to  me  the  power  to  speak,  to  my 
speech  the  power  to  move,  and  to  the  fathers,  here 
assembled,  the  power  to  celebrate,  not  with  words 
but  in  fact,  this  true,  holy,  long-demanded  council,  so 
that  they  may  eradicate  blemishes,  stimulate  upright- 
ness, remove  the  foxes  which,  in  these  days,  swarm 
forth  to  destroy  the  holy  vineyard,  and  may  at  length 
bring  back  religion  (now  in  a  ruinous  condition)  to  its 
ancient  purity,  to  its  former  brightness,  to  its  natural 
glory,  and  to  the  true  source  of  its  origin.1 

The  preacher  classified  the  many  defects  and  abuses 
in  the  Church  under  general  heads,  interspersing  his 
censures  with  quotations  from  Scripture  and  the  early- 
Fathers  of  the  Church.  Earnestness,  indignation,  and 
grief,  alternated  in  the  oration,  as  the  impassioned 
speaker  strove  to  kindle  a  zeal  for  amendment  in  the 
hearts  of  his  influential  auditors,  and  pleaded  the 
necessity  of  it.  Towards  the  close  of  his  sermon  he 
inveighed  against  the  use  of  carnal  weapons  for  the 
support  of  the  Church's  cause  and  authority ;  he 
recalled  Christendom  to  a  completer  dependence  on  the 
Divine  Ruler  and  to  a  more  adequate  performance  of 
His  will.2 

Debates  upon  the  topic,  which  formed  the  basis  of 
all  this  oratory,  occurred  before  a  few  sessions  of  the 
Lateran  Council,  notably  the  ninth,  when  a  temporary 
movement  towards  the  important  task  of  remedying 

they  serve  to  prove  that,  at  the  very  time  the  great  Dominican  was 
admonishing  the  Florentines,  another  beside  him  was  delivering  the  same 
message  in  precisely  the  same  form  :  a  scourge  sent  by  God,  followed  by 
a  renovation  effected  through  a  council. 

1  Labb.  et  Coss.,  XIV,  20A,  b.  a  Ibid.,  25027A. 


108   DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

flagrant  abuses  took  place.  But  the  one  particular 
session  which  will  always  attract  the  meditative,  or 
perhaps  we  ought  to  say,  the  student  of  the  prophetic 
in  history,  is  the  twelfth,  on  account  of  a  remarkable 
incident  that  happened  during  it.  We  allude  to  the 
presentation  to  the  Pope  by  J.  F.  Pico  della  Mirandola 
(the  nephew  of  Savonarola's  ardent  follower,  and  him- 
self the  Dominican's  apologist)  of  an  Oratio  de  Refor- 
mandis  Moribus,1  in  which  he  advised  the  pontiff  to 
prosecute  the  work  of  cleansing  the  Church  lest  God 
Himself  punish  her  for  her  iniquities. 

With  this  session  concluded  the  Lateran  Council. 
It  finished  its  deliberations  in  March,  1517,  at  a  juncture 
which,  in  the  light  of  after  events,  was  not  without 
grave  significance.* 

To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  two  singular  demands 
for  reform  in  1512  were  answered  in  the  same  way  : 
possessing  other  points  of  resemblance,  they  were  alike 
also  in  their  consequences.  The  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury and  the  General  Council  at  the  Lateran  achieved 
the  real,  not  the  avowed,  objects  of  their  convention  ; 
in  the  former  case,  a  royal  subsidy  from  the  clergy  and 
some  increased  activity  against  heretics  ;  in  the  latter, 
the  overthrow  of  the  Cardinals'  Council.  Then  they 
passed,  amidst  many  solemnities  and  ceremonies,  into 
oblivion. 

Shortly  after  the  delivery  of  his  great  sermon,  Colet 
withdrew  into  the  rural  district  of  Stepney,  where  his 
mother  resided,  and  thence  he  wrote,  probably  in 
February,  1512,*  to  Erasmus,  telling  him  of  a  laughable 
incident  that  had  taken  place  : — 

A  certain   bishop   (so    I   have   heard),   and   he  one 
ranked  among  the  wiser  sort,  reviled  our  school  in  a 

1  This  document  is  given  in  full  by  Roscoe  (T.),  Leo  X,  Liverpool,  1805, 
III,App.  CXLVI. 

2  Prof.  Kraus  of  Munich  in  Camb.  Mod.  Hist.,  II,  31. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1792-3.  Allen  (Erasmi  Epp.,  I,  508)  dates  this  letter 
March,  not  February,  15 12.  The  difference  in  time  is  not  of  importance 
here.    Possibly  it  was  written  in  March. 


COLET'S  DIFFICULT  POSITION         109 

large  assembly,  and  said  that  I  had  established  a  use- 
less thing,  yea,  even — to  quote  his  own  words — a 
house  of  idolatry.  I  fancy  he  said  that  because  the 
Poets  are  taught  there.  I  am  not  angry  at  this  kind 
of  thing,  Erasmus.      It  only  excites  my  laughter.1 

As  the  summer  of  this  year  advanced  the  hostility 
against  Colet  increased.  Troubles,  indeed,  of  many 
kinds  were  weighing  upon  him.  His  calm  and  gentle 
temper,  usually  so  well  guarded,  began  to  betray  some 
tokens  of  impatience.  Accordingly,  Erasmus  forwarded 
to  him,  about  nth  July,  1512,  a  letter  in  which  he  strove 
to  allay  the  Dean's  irritability*: — 

Peace  of  mind  is  truly  the  greatest  of  all  good 
things.  And  those  perplexities  of  thine  are  the  com- 
panions of  riches.  Meanwhile,  present  an  upright 
and  true  conscience  to  the  prattle  of  the  ill-disposed, 
and  devote  thyself  to  the  one  unchanging  Christ,  and 
the  inconstant  world  will  vex  thee  less.  But  why  do 
I,  the  Pig,  instruct  thee,  Minerva,3  and  I,  myself,  the 
patient,  undertake  to  heal  thee,  the  physician?  Fare 
thee  well,  excellent  teacher.     Cambridge,  1 1  July. 

I  have  completed  the  collation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  am  now  taking  up  Jerome.  When  I  have 
finished  him  I  will  return  to  thee.   .   .   . 

Undoubtedly,  the  greater  part  of  the  vexations 
referred  to  above  as  coming  upon  Colet  arose  from  the 
collection  and  allocation  of  the  funds  necessary  for  the 
building  and  endowment  of  his  school,  and  such-like 
matters.     But  these  pressed  upon  him  all  the  more 

1  With  this  ep.  Colet  sent  Erasmus  "  the  little  book  which  contained  the 
sermon  " — very  likely  the  Convocation  Sermon. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  107c,  d.  Allen,  I,  525-8,  dates  it  15 13,  but  he  does  not 
feel  confident  about  it.  He  surmises  that  the  reference  to  the  castigatio 
of  the  Ne%v  Testament  being  finished  ought  to  put  this  ep.  subsequent 
to  September,  15 12.  I  have,  however,  on  other  grounds,  retained  it  as 
belonging  to  July,  1512. 

3  "  Sus  Minervam  docet,  indoctus  docet  sapientem  " — Facciolati, 
Bailey's  edit.,  London,  1828.  quoting  Cic.  Acad,  and  De  Orat.  Bailey 
gives  as  the  corresponding  English  phrase  :  "  To  teach  his  grandmother 
to  chew  cheese." 


no   DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

sorely  because  his  enemies  were  energetically  seeking 
to  compass  his  undoing. 

The  "  laughable  incident  "  Colet  related  to  Erasmus 
was  almost  certainly  no  isolated  affair.  He  had 
received  warning  from  his  friend,  Thomas  More,  that 
the  school  would  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  Greek 
Horse1  wherein  lurked  many  perils  for  the  citadel  of 
ignorance,  that,  in  fact,  the  institution  was  sure  to 
awaken  an  outburst  of  malice.  The  prophecy  had 
already  attained  fulfilment. 

Nevertheless,  the  school  was  not  the  only  cause  of 
animosity  against  the  Dean.  He  had  spoken  more 
than  once  too  kindly  of  the  heretics — a  dangerous 
thing  to  do  in  that  epoch.  His  sermons,  too,  attracted 
the  Lollards  in  search  of  evangelical  teaching  ;  these 
men  found  food  for  their  souls  when  the  Dean  occupied 
the  pulpit.  And  he  had  now,  by  setting  forth  the  naked 
details  in  his  Convocation  Sermon,  drawn  the  attention 
of  the  public  to  the  corrupt  practices  in  the  Church 
and  the  true  causes  of  the  depraved  state  of  religion. 
He  had  added  the  open  declaration  that  the  ill-behaved 
clergy  were  the  worst  kind  of  heretics.  Here  truly  lay 
ample  grounds  for  hostility.  Over  and  above  these, 
however,  there  were  many  private  reasons  for  malice. 
Some  members  of  the  Cathedral  Chapter,2  some  of  his 
fellow-clergy  and  of  the  superior  ecclesiastics  nourished 
personal  grudges  against  him.  Dr.  Fitz James,  his 
bishop,  had  never  been  on  friendly  terms  with  Colet, 
and  this  powerful  dignitary  became  the  centre  of  the 
disaffection  directed  against  the  Dean. 

Accordingly,  some  time  in  the  months  subsequent 
to  the  Convocation  of  1512,  perhaps  during  the  autumn 
of  that  year,  his  adversaries  succeeded  in  collecting 

1  Stapleton,  Tres  Thotnae,  etc.,  edit.  1612,  p.  166  :  "  De  qua  schola 
sic  in  quadam  ad  eum  epistola  Morus.  Neque  valde  miror  si  clarissimae 
scholae  tuae  rumpantur  invidia.  Vident  enim  uti  ex  equo  Troiano 
prodierunt  Graeci,  qui  barbaram  diruere  Troiam,  sic  e  tua  prodire  schola 
qui  ipsorum  arguunt  atque  subvertunt  inscitiam." 

■  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  460c. 


ATTACKS  UPON  COLET       in 

charges  against  him  sufficient,  as  they  imagined,  for 
their  purpose.  Fitzjames,  supported  by  two  other 
bishops,  brought  Colet  to  trial  before  the  Primate  on 
three  counts,  firstly,  that  he  had  taught  that  images 
were  not  to  be  adored,  secondly,  that  he  had  given  a 
false  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  injunction  to  St. 
Peter,  Feed  My  sheep,  and  thirdly,  that  Colet  had  made 
a  public  attack  on  his  diocesan  (Dr.  Fitzjames)  by 
criticizing  his  manner  of  preaching.  Archbishop 
Warham  quashed  the  proceedings.1 

Fresh  opportunities  soon  after  presented  themselves 
to  the  Dean's  adversaries.  Twice  Colet  preached  on 
warfare,  once  towards  the  end  of  1512,  about  the  time 
of  the  unsuccessful  English  expedition  into  Fontarabia,2 
and  again,  a  few  months  later,  on  Good  Friday,  27th 
March,  1513.  On  the  second  occasion,  he  preached 
before  King  Henry  himself  and  his  Court,  in  the  Royal 
Chapel,  on  the  eve  of  an  expedition  against  France, 
which  the  King  had  decided  to  conduct  in  person.  The 
death  of  Pope  Julius  and  the  elevation  of  Cardinal 
Giovanni  de'  Medici  to  the  Papacy,  as  Leo  X,  revived 
hopes  in  many  quarters  that  a  European  peace  would 
ensue.8  With  these  new-born  expectations  of  peace 
uppermost  in  his  mind,  Colet  spoke  on  the  Victory 
of  Christ — a  subject  that  inspired  him  with  forceful 
earnestness.  Those  wicked  men,  he  said,  who  fight  with 
other  wicked  men,  through  hatred  or  ambition,  and  who 
slaughter  one  another  in  turn,  serve  not  under  the  banner 
of  Christ,  but  under  that  of  the  devil.  They  seldom 
undertake  war  except  when  urged  to  it  by  covetousness 
or  animosity.  Christians  should  imitate  Christ,  their 
Prince,  rather  than  Juliuses  or  Alexanders.* 

1  Ibid.,  460C-E.     2  Hume,  Hist,  of  England,  III,  419-22. 

3  "  Julius,  a  Pontiff  by  no  means  esteemed  of  all,  could  arouse  this 
storm  of  war,  but  will  it  be  impossible  for  Leo,  a  learned,  upright  and 
pious  man,  to  assuage  it  ?  " — Erasmus  to  Antony  of  Bergen,  Abbot  of 
St.  Bertin,  ep.  dated  by  Nichols  and  Allen  14th  March,  1  e;  14,  Eras.  Op., 
Ill,  123-4. 

'  Ibid.,  461B  :    "  Addidit,  ut  Christum  Principem  suum  imitarentur 


ii2    DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

Colet's  enemies  were  not  slow  to  grasp  the  chances 
afforded  them  by  his  indiscreet  utterances.1  They 
endeavoured  to  stir  up  the  King  and  the  people  against 
him,  but  unsuccessfully.  Henry,  on  both  occasions, 
sent  for  the  preacher,  and  was  completely  satisfied  with 
the  explanations  given  by  the  Dean.  After  the  second 
interview  had  taken  place,  and  Colet  had  retired,  the 
King  proclaimed,  in  unequivocal  terms,  the  high  esteem 
which  he  entertained  for  him.2 

The  perils  that  surrounded  Colet  at  this  period  are 
not  here  exaggerated.  They  were  still  alluded  to  as 
within  the  public  remembrance  long  after  Colet  was 
dead.3  But  whatever  were  the  hostilities  which  the 
year  1513  had  brought  to  him  at  its  beginning,  it  seemed 
likely  to  terminate  in  comparative  peacefulness.  The 
friendship  of  the  King  could  not  prevent,  no  doubt,  the 
frequent  occurrence  of  petty  persecutions,  but  it  had 
effectually  disarmed  the  greater.  Accordingly,  Erasmus 
was  able,  by  31st  October,*  to  congratulate  him  on  the 
return  of  tranquillity. 

Whilst  expectations  of  reform  occupied  the  minds  of 
those  who  were  interested  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
Lateran  Council,  two  scholars  were  quietly  pursuing  a 
task  calculated  eventually  to  contribute  far  more  than 
the  deliberations  of  the  Council  to  the  solution  of  the 
problems  therein  debated.  Lefevre  d'fitaples,  in  the 
hope  that  his  prophecy  would  be  fulfilled  by  the  acts 

potius.  quam  Julios  et  Alexandros  " — an  obvious  hit  at  the  two  late 
popes,  Alexander  VI  and  Julius  II.  See  Lupton,  Cola,  p.  190,  and  cp. 
also  the  sentiment  of  Vettori,  the  Florentine  :  "  Alexander  and  Julius 
were  so  great  that  they  may  be  called  Emperors  rather  than  Popes  "  in 
Creighton,  V,  190. 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  460F-461A. 

2  Ibid.,  461D:  "  Ibi  Rex  omnibus  audientibus,  Suus.  inquit,  cuique 
doctor  esto,  et  suo  quisque  faveat,  hie  est  doctor  meus." 

3  Tvndale,  Answer  to  Sir  Thomas  Alore's  Dialogue,  etc.,  Parker  Soc. 
Pub.,  Camb.,  1850,  pp.  167-8:  Hugh  Latimer  (Sermons,  Parker  Soc. 
Pub.,  1844),  p.  440.  alludes  to  the  time  when  Colet  would  have  been 
burnt,  if  the  King  had  not  stood  his  friend. 

4  Eras.  Op.,  Til,  IOJB-P  :  see  Allen,  I,  536 


LEFfiVRE  AS  AN  EXPOSITOR  113 

of  the  Council,  had  been  working  at  a  Commentary  on 
the  Pauline  Epistles.1  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  at  this 
period  of  his  life  he  made  no  appeal  to  the  Christian 
laity.  As  his  works  were  written,  not  in  the  vernacular, 
but  in  Latin,  they  could  only  have  been  intended  by 
him  for  the  student  and  the  cleric — in  other  words,  for 
the  educated.  The  desire  was  strong  in  him  that  the 
cleric,  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  Prophet,  the 
Apostle,  and  the  Evangelist,  and  responding  in  some 
measure  to  the  wish  of  his  Lord,  would  make  known 
to  the  people  the  divine  truth  as  it  is  revealed  in  Holy 
Scripture.  To  aid  reform,  so  far  as  an  extension  of  the 
Bible  could  effect  it,  was  the  sole  object  of  Lefevre's 
labours.  It  was  a  serious  task,  beset  with  many 
difficulties  and  some  danger,  but  one  fascinating  and 
delightful  to  him,  engrossing  his  whole  being.  No  one, 
indeed,  can  help  observing,  even  from  the  most  cursory 
perusal  of  the  Dedicatory  Preface  (addressed  to  his 
pupil  and  patron,  Guillaume  de  Briconnet,  Bishop  of 
Lodeve),  that  Lefevre  believed  himself  called  upon  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  perform  the  work  as  a  duty  which 
he  owed  to  Him  from  Whom  the  light  had  come  to 
himself.  One  pauses  here  to  remark  the  consciousness 
of  a  divine  power  impelling  the  worker  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  a  particular  undertaking,8  which  pene- 
trated the  mind  of  Lefevre,  and,  in  all  certainty,  also 
that  of  Colet,  who,  if  the  matter  had  come  before  him 
for  notice,  would  have  confessed  to  a  like  impulse. 
Lefevre,  in  fact,  gives  us  the  clue  to  much  that  would 
otherwise  be  inexplicable  in  the  lives  of  those  who 
endeavoured,  during  the  first  decades  of  the  sixteenth 

1  It  appears  that  Lefevre,  subsequent  to  the  publication  of  the  Quin- 
cuplex  Psalterium,  made  a  journey  into  Germany  for  the  purpose  of  this 
Commentary — Herminjard,  I,  4  ;  Graf,  p.  18,  "  Er  hielt  sich  in  Juli  dieses 
Jahres  (1509)  in  Mainz  auf,  besuchte  viele  Klostcr  am  Rhein,  und  ging 
auch  zu  den  Briidern  des  gemeinschaftlichen  Lebens  in  Coin." 

2  Epistola  .  .  .  Gvillermo  Briconncto  Episcopo  Lodovensi.  5.«.,  in 
Epistole  diui  Pauli  apostoli.  J  F.  Siapnlen.,  Parrhisiis  in  edibus  F. 
Regnault  et  Joannis  de  la  Porte,  15 17. 

1 


ii4    DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

century,  to  effect  desirable  changes  in  the  religious  ideals 
and  practices  of  their  contemporaries.  He,  indeed, 
reveals  the  motive-power  ;  we  can  easily  declare  the 
object  aimed  at.  For  instance,  Lefevre  admonishes 
Briconnet,  when  reading  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  to 
look  away  from  the  apostolic  writer  to  the  Master  Who 
had  dictated  the  writing,  and  likewise,  when  perusing 
the  present  Commentary,  to  have  regard  neither  to  the 
writer  of  it  nor  to  the  actual  letter  written,  but  to  Him 
Who  had  directed  its  performance.  The  words  are 
explicit.  They  depict  a  vision  of  God  presiding  over  all 
departments  of  human  erudition,  and,  by  the  agency 
of  His  own  afflatus,  imparting  real  value  and  power  to 
the  efforts  of  human  genius.  They  recognize  the  im- 
possibility of  a  noble  thing  being  conceived,  a  noble 
thing  done,  for  humanity  apart  from  the  conscious,  or 
unconscious,  motion  of  divine  energy.1  As  a  conse- 
quence of  such  an  over-mastering  idea  Lefevre  employs 
words  concerning  his  own  enterprise  which  might  be 
capable  of  misconstruction  into  a  claim  to  inspiration, 
if  the  train  of  his  thoughts  were  not  carefully  observed. 
Defined,  however,  as  Lefevre  has  exhibited  it,  few  will 
be  found  to  deny  the  essential  truth  of  the  concept. 

In  his  work  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  Lefevre  once 
more  assumed  the  double  role  of  textual  critic  and 
exegete.  As  a  work  of  criticism  this  later  production  is 
a  distinct  advance  upon  his  Psalter,  and  a  similar 
decision  can  be  arrived  at  in  reference  to  its  value  as  a 
commentary.     His  knowledge  of  Greek,  however,  was 

1  Ibid.,  a.ij.  There  is  something  akin  to  this  in  Cola's  Lectures  on 
Romans,  Lupton's  edit.,  pp.  43-6.  At  the  same  time,  the  words  of 
M.  Berger,  La  Bible  au  Seizieme  Siecle,  p.  29,  must  not  be  forgotten,  since 
Lefevre — and  others — cannot  have  been  unaffected  by  the  opinions  of 
their  predecessors  in  this  matter  :  "  Nous  voyons,  bien  au  contraire, 
plusieurs  auteurs  representer  Dieu,  par  maniere  de  Darler,  comme  l'auteur 
de  leurs  propres  livres,  dans  les  memes  termes  ou  ils  lui  attribuent  les 
livres  saints.  L'idee,  universclle  au  moyen  ac;e,  que  l'Eelise  avait  l'au- 
toritc  de  Dieu  memo,  devait  mettre  sur  un  meme  pied  de  respect  et  de 
creance  un  grand  nombrc  de  livres,  de  decrets  ct  de  canons  de  conciles." 


LEFfiVRE'S  COMMENTARIES  115 

faulty,  and  therefore  in  certain  passages  he  has  incurred 
censures  which  he  would  have  thoroughly  deserved  if 
the  means  of  showing  greater  discrimination  had  been 
within  his  reach.  But  we  feel  confident  that,  when  the 
circumstances  of  his  life,  the  bent  of  his  deliberations, 
and  the  qualities  of  his  character,  are  reckoned  up,  his 
performance  will  not  be  found,  to  any  extent,  despic- 
able. Before  we  sit  in  judgment  upon  Lefevre's  work, 
we  should  recall  to  mind  certain  particular  facts  : 
textual  criticism,  as  we  know  it,  was  then  totally 
unthought  of  as  a  science  in  itself ;  no  rules  to  guide 
the  critic  had  yet  been  formulated  ;  creditable  manu- 
scripts were  not  easily  available,  and  to  those  which 
were  at  hand  the  relative  values  had  not  yet  been 
assigned.  In  addition  to  these  considerations,  we  must 
not  forget  that  one  who  wrote  under  the  shadow  of  the 
Sorbonne,  in  those  days,  had  to  exercise  an  incalculable 
amount  of  caution,  for,  impatient  as  that  body  ever 
was  of  papal  demands  and  encroachments,  it  retained 
still  the  spirit  which  had  animated  its  representatives 
at  the  Council  of  Constance  when  these  had  taken  part 
in  the  condemnation  of  John  Huss.  And,  again,  it  is 
matter  for  reasonable  doubt  if  Lefevre,  in  this  Com- 
mentary on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  any  more  than  in  his 
Quincuple  Psalter,  proposed  to  himself  as  his  prime 
objective  the  emendation  of  the  Latin  text.  One 
can  indeed  go  further  and  assert,  in  the  assurance 
that  his  Preface  will  prove  it  beyond  question,  that 
he  held  the  correction  of  the  text  to  be  necessary  only 
so  far  as  it  had  to  do  with  the  enforcement  of  the 
divine  counsels.  With  him  exegesis  took  first  place; 
textual  criticism  was  entirely  a  side-issue  owing  its 
existence  to  the  requirement  of  a  comparatively  pure 
text  for  purposes  of  exposition.  Moreover,  the  ex- 
positions he  advanced  were  such  as  might  have  come 
from  one  whose  entire  concern  with  the  religious 
ignorance  and  the  iniquities  of  the  age  was  the  intro- 
duction  of   the   saving   knowledge   of   divine   truth.1 

1  Epistola.  .  .   Gvill.  Brie,  a.ij.,  in  fine. 


n6  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

To  put  it  brief!}',  he  was  a  critic  only  because  an 
expounder  ;  an  innovator  only  because  a  teacher ; 
a  reprover  only  because  a  preacher  of  holiness.  He 
was  neither  a  revolutionist  as  regarded  the  prevalent 
theology,  nor  a  pedant  as  regarded  the  intellectual 
depravity  of  his  time,  nor  a  satirist  as  regarded  the 
failings  of  his  contemporaries.  Before  he  began  his 
biblical  labours,  Colet  had  expounded  the  Scriptures 
and  Erasmus  had  edited  the  Annotations  of  Laurentius 
Valla  on  the  Latin  text.  But  then,  the  former  had 
not  delivered  his  expositions  to  the  printer  :  if  he  had 
ever  contemplated  doing  so  he  would  have  become 
aware  of  the  necessity  of  scrutinizing  the  text ;  and  the 
latter  had  published  a  work  which  was  of  interest  only 
to  the  learned  and  had  no  direct  connection  with  the 
seeker  after  righteousness.  Lefevre  endeavoured  to 
combine  both,  but  at  the  same  time  took  care 
to  give  the  place  of  prominence  to  the  expository 
teaching.  « 

The  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  is  regarded,  in  the 
light  of  subsequent  events,  as  of  supreme  importance.1 
Unquestionably,  the  historical  worth  of  the  book 
does  not  lie  in  the  revision  of  the  text  which  Lefevre 
made  from  the  Ancient  Latin  (the  version  St.  Jerome 
himself  corrected),  but  in  the  independence  of  the 
comments.  Here,  indeed,  we  observe  the  truth  of 
the  assertion  that,  in  his  work,  as  in  his  labours  upon 
Aristotle,  Lefevre  was  a  pioneer.  Commentators 
before  him  had  confined  themselves  to  a  beaten  track, 
stepping  in  the  footprints  of  their  predecessors.  Pass- 
ing by  them  all,  he  struck  out  a  distinct  course  for 
himself. 

In  his  Quincuple  Psalter  he  cites  no  modern  author- 
ity ;    he  follows  the  same  plan  here.     Of  the  ancient 

1  Dr.  Ddaruelle,  alluding  primarily  to  this  Commentary,  says  : 
"  Lefevre,  by  his  exegetical  works,  hastened  the  Reformation  " — Guill. 
Bu  le,  p.  54.  M.  H'-rminjard  constituted  the  Preface  of  this  Commentary 
the  starting-point  of  his  Correspondance  des  Reformateurs. 


LEFkVRE'S  DOCTRINAL  OPINIONS      117 

fathers  he  mentions  only  such  as  SS.  Chrysostom  and 
Theophylact.  He  appears  to  owe  something  to 
Origen,1  but  whether  directly  or  indirectly  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say,  since  he  makes  no  allusion  to  him.  From 
the  great  Bishop  of  Hippo  Lefevre  derives  no  part  of 
his  doctrine  ;  indeed,  one  would  be  inclined  to  describe 
his  opinions  as  anti-Augustinian  so  far  are  his  thoughts 
removed  from  the  teaching  of  that  renowned  Father 
of  the  Church,  if  one  were  not  convinced  by  an  examina- 
tion of  his  book  that  he  does  not  intentionally  oppose 
any  Christian  teacher  whatever.  Yet,  in  expressing 
his  views  on  Original  Sin,  Lefevre  enunciated  his 
most  pronouncedly  anti-Augustinian  doctrine :  he 
marked  a  distinction  between  potential  and  actual  sin, 
and  maintained  that  Adam's  descendants  are  born 
with  the  former,  which  in  course  of  time  becomes 
actual.1  The  African  father,  on  the  contrary,  had 
laid  down  the  dogma  that  "  original  "  sin  is  actual. 
However,  the  opinion  thus  propounded  by  Lefevre, 
though  quite  as  distinct  from  the  Pelagian  ideas  as 
from  the  Augustinian,  was  not  by  any  means  so  new 
as  a  recent  biographer  (Dr.  Barnaud)  imagines. 
Scholastic  theology  had  advanced  another  view,  not 
indeed  identical  in  terms  with  Lefevre's,  but  so  much 
akin  in  meaning  as  not  to  be  easily  distinguished  from 

1  Lefevre  contrasts  the  universality  of  Adam's  offence  with  the  vaster 
universality  of  Christ's  righteousness  :  "  Et  iustitia  Christi  longe  vniuer- 
salior  :  quanto  capacitas  coeli  amplior  est  quam  terrae  angustia.  est 
enim  peccatum  Ade  vt  tota  terra  :  iustitia  Christi  vt  coeli  amplitudo  " — 
Com.  in  Rom.  v,  12,  f.  8ob,  ed.  Hen.  Stephani,  1512  ;  fo.  LXIIfl,  cd. 
15 17.  Origen  {Contra  Cels.),  though  in  a  different  way,  expresses  the 
same  notion:  "Nullus  profecto  malus  affectus  est  anim'.,  quo  verbum 
Dei  non  sit  potentius." 

Colet  is  very  close  in  thought  to  Lefevre  :  "  Wherefore  we  must  believe 
that  grace,  which  reconciles  to  God,  has  far  more  power  in  the  world  than 
sin,  which  estranges  from  God" — Led.  on  Rom.,  p.  10.  Probably  the 
similarity  comes  from  their  acquaintance  with  Origen's  dictum. 

1  Commentariorum  Liber  I,  cap.  VII,  fo.  LXVII,  vo.  (Rom.  vii,  14). 
Unless  otherwise  stated,  the  edition  referred  to  in  these  notes  is  Epistolt 
diui  Pauli  apostoli,  etc.,  Parrhisiis,  15 17. 


n8  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

it,  viz.,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his 
descendant.1 

The  cardinal  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith  only, 
so  important  in  its  effects  upon  the  rest  of  Christian 
dogmas,  is  asserted  by  Lefevre  without  hesitation 
and  in  numerous  passages.  But,  added  he,  "  Neither 
Faith  nor  Works  justify ;  they  only  prepare  for 
justification."2 

In  his  endeavour  to  determine  the  proper  function 
of  the  free-will  in  man,  he  displays,  even  more  than 
anywhere  else,  his  anxiety  to  maintain  a  via  media. 
In  one  passage  he  appears  to  remove  the  free-will 
from  the  sphere  of  righteous  action,3  expressing  himself 
against  the  opinion  that  the  human  will  has  an  un- 
fettered operation,  but  he  corrected  the  balance  by  his 
comments  in  other  passages.4 

Lefevre  assigned  such  importance  to  faith  as  the 
necessary  conditions  for  receiving  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  Atonement  that  his  opinions  regarding  the 
ordinances  of  the  Church  could  not  but  be  affected  by 
it.  Accordingly,  we  notice  that  he  insisted,  with 
marked  explicitness,  upon  the  requirement  of  faith  to 
render  valid  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.8  This  plain- 
ness of  speech  vanishes  almost  entirely  when  he  comes 
to  treat  of  any  other  sacrament ;  yet  the  inference 
remains  that  what  he  expressed  concerning  one  he 

1  Hook  (Dean  W.  F.),  Church  Dictionary,  London,  1852,  sub  voce 
"  Original  Sin." 

2  Com.  Lib.  I,  cap.  Ill,  fo.  LIX,  vo.  (Rom.  iii,  28) ;  and  Lib.  Ill, 
cap.  V,  fo.  CXI  (2  Cor.  v,  16).  For  his  opinion  on  the  possibility  of  the 
unbelieving  heathen  being  saved,  provided  that,  though  never  hearing  of 
Christ,  they  have  performed  all  the  works  of  virtue,  see  Com.  Lib.  I, 
cap.  II,  fo.  LVII  (Rom.  ii,  14). 

8  Com.  Lib.  VI,  cap.  II,  fo.  CXXXVII,  vo.  (Phil,  ii,  13). 

*  Com.  Lib.  I,  cap.  IX,  fo.  LXXII  (Rom.  ix,  14,  19).  Graf,  p.  36  n., 
remarks  :  "  Von  der  anselmischen  Versohnungslehre  ist  bei  Faber  keine 
Rede."  For  Anselm's  theory,  consult  the  Bohlen  Lectures  of  Dr.  G.  C. 
Foley,  Anselm's  Theory  of  the  Atonement,  London,  1908,  an  excellent 
handbook  which  deals  with  the  subject  fully. 

6  Com.  Lib.  I,  cap.  IIII,  fo.  LXII  (Rom.'iv,  9). 


LEFfiVRE'S  DOCTRINAL   OPINIONS      119 

intended  with  respect  to  all,  and  some  words  of  his 
seem  to  justify  this  conclusion. 

As  we  have  already  pointed  out,  Lefevre  brought 
with  him  from  his  birth-place  conservative  views 
regarding  piety  and  practical  religion.  And  now, 
in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  he  displays 
them  in  combination  with  an  entire  adoption  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine  of  the  worthlessness  of  works  for 
obtaining  justification.  Accordingly,  whilst  asserting 
that  acts  of  penitence  cannot  justify,  or  satisfy  for 
sin,1  he  assigns  to  them  a  distinct  value  in  the  service 
of  piety  but  hastens  to  advise  the  penitent  to  look  only 
to  God  in  a  truly  repentant  spirit.2 

In  his  expression  of  opinion  on  Penances,  with 
which  the  theory  of  Indulgences  is  connected,  Lefevre, 
as  M.  Barnaud  rightly  observes,3  was  merely  repeating 
the  views  of  the  great  Doctors  of  former  days.  But 
it  was,  in  truth,  a  very  different  opinion  from  that 
which  obtained  general  acceptance  amongst  his 
contemporaries. 

Confession  he  found  some  worth  in,  provided  it  be 
first  addressed  to  God.4  Conscious  communion  with 
God  is  thus,  according  to  him,  the  true  source  of  piety. 
This  thought  led  on  to  that  of  prayer,  and  required 
that  the  latter  should  be  intelligent.  Therefore, 
Lefevre  did  not  hesitate  to  maintain  that,  for  the 
unlearned,  prayer  ought  to  be  in  the  vernacular.5 

The  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  he  asserted,  is  not  a  true 
sacrifice,  but  the  memorial  of  a  sacrifice.  Beyond  this, 
he  said  nothing  definite  in  his  remarks  upon  the  Holy 
Eucharist.     He  inculcated  holiness  as  requisite  for  it, 

1  Com.  Lib.  VII,  cap.  II,  fo.  CXLIIII,  vo.  (Col.  ii,  16). 

2  Ibid.,  cap.  Ill,  fo.  CXLV,  vo.  (Col.  iii,  5). 
8  Lefevre  d' Staples,  p.  41. 

4  Iacobi  Fabri  Stapvlensis  Theologi  Celeberrimi  Commentarii  in 
epistolas  Catholicas,  Coloniae,  1570,  pp.  81-3  (Jas.  v,  16).  This  is  a 
much  later  commentary  of  Lefevre's,  but  it  is  cited  here,  to  complete  the 
general  view  of  his  opinions. 

6  Com.  Lib.  II,  cap.  XIIII,  fo.  CI  (1  Cor.  xiv,  16). 


120  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

but  that  is  only  what  we  might  expect  of  him  ;  he 
manifested  exalted  ideas  of  its  spiritual  significance 
and  value,  but  that  is  in  strict  agreement  with  the 
opinions  he  expressed  upon  Baptism.  He  added, 
nevertheless,  several  particulars  which  appear  to  make 
it  plain  that,  concerning  this  sacrament,  he  entertained 
no  views  divergent  from  those  of  his  contemporaries.1 

Lefevre  controverted  the  common  idea  that  the 
monastic  and  ascetic  life  was  the  superior.  Men  can 
serve  Christ  as  well  outside  as  inside  convents.2  Those 
who  live  in  convents  should  not  live  idly,  for  SS.  Paul, 
Timothy,  and  Barnabas  gave  counsel  to  that  effect, 
and  they  were  holy.8  He  recognized  a  certain  amount 
of  pre-eminence  in  the  celibate  life,  but  he  adopted 
St.  Paul's  reason  for  the  superiority,  viz.,  the  greater 
usefulness  to  the  Church  of  the  unmarried  man.* 
In  fact,  he  intimated  that  the  Church  retained  the  more 
truly  apostolical  custom  of  permitting  the  clergy  to 
marry  once  until  the  time  of  Pope  Gregory  VII.4 

In  his  doctrine  of  the  Church  he  once  more  emphasized 
in  these  Commentaries,  though  after  a  different 
manner,  the  thought  which  we  have  seen  already  to 
be  so  prominent  in  his  earlier  work  on  the  Psalms, 
that  Catholicity  is  a  quality  inherent  in  the  very  being 
of  Christ's  Church.6  Whatever  breaks  the  unity  of 
the  Church  forms  a  sect,  a  heresy.7 

Some  slight  differences  of  opinion  existed  between 
Dean  Colet  and  Lefevre  ;  but  the  points  in  which  they 
agreed  were  much  more  numerous  and  inportant 
than    those    in    which    they    differed.     Colet,    in    his 

1  Com.  Lib.  XIIII,  cap.  VII,  fo.  CXCIII ;  Lib.  II,  cap.  XII,  fo.  XCVII 
vo.  ;   Lib.  XII,  cap.  I,  fo.  CLXXII  (Heb.  vii,  27,  1  Cor.  xi,  23,  Tit.  i). 

2  Com.  Lib.  II,  cap.  I,  fo.  LXXXIIII  (1  Cor.  i,  10). 

3  Com.  Lib.  VIII,  cap.  IIII,  fo.  CLI  (1  Thesi.  iv,  n). 

•  Com.  Lib.  II,  cap.  VII,  fo.  XCI  (1  Cor.  vii,  8). 

5  Com.  Lib.  X,  cap.  Ill,  fo.  CLIX  vo.  (1  Tim.  iii,  2). 

•  Com.  Lib.  V,  cap.  II,  fo.  CXXIX  vo.  ;  Lib.  II,  cap.  I,  fo.  LXXXIIII 
(Ephes.ii,  11-22,  1  Cor,  i,  10). 

7  Com.  Lib.  VI,  cap.  Ill,  fo.  CXXXIX  (Phil,  iii,  15). 


COLET'S  DOCTRINAL  OPINIONS         121 

Commentaries  on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  published 
for  the  first  time  a  generation  ago,  makes  exceedingly 
few  clear  statements  on  the  dogmas  of  Christian 
theology  or  on  the  efficacy  and  operation  of  the  sacra- 
ments, with  the  single  exception  of  Justification  by 
Faith  only,1  in  the  one,  and  Baptism  in  the  other. 
It  is  far  otherwise  with  Lefevre.  A  system  of  theology 
might  almost  be  drawn  from  the  utterances  of  the  latter. 
Yet  his  system  would  fail  to  possess  distinct  outlines  ; 
his  doctrines,  in  fact,  lack  the  precision  which,  during 
later  times,  was  given  to  theological  definitions  by  the 
conflicting  parties  among  Christians.  Nevertheless, 
a  fundamental  idea  is  common  to  the  teaching  of  both 
Colet  and  his  French  contemporary — the  necessity  of 
a  spiritual  principle  in  the  heart  of  man  to  the 
validity,  in  the  sight  of  God,  of  his  outward  acts. 
However  they  may  disagree  in  some  particulars  it  is 
abundantly  evident  that  they  had  drunk  at  the  same 
fountain. 

On  Original  Sin,  Colet  seems  to  have  held  a  view  not 
dissimilar  from  Lefevre's  ;  *  in  regard  to  Baptism  his 
ideas  were  identical.3 

The  Dean  insisted  quite  as  strongly  upon  the  ad- 
visability of  the  penitent  in  Confession  addressing 
himself  to  God.4 

His  estimate  of  the  monastic  life  agreed  with  that 


1  Colet  had  a  strong  predilection  for  St.  Augustine — Lupton,  Colet's 
Lectures  on  the  Romans,  p.  xxxix,  note  6. 

*  "  Infantes  baptizati  nubeculam  originalis  injustitiae  adventu  luminis 
habent  propulsam " — Lupton's  edition  of  Colet's  De  Sacramentis 
Ecclesiae,  London,  1867,  p.  89.    Cp.  also  Letters  to  Radulphus,  pp.  135-6. 

3  De  Sacr.  Eccl.,  pp.  88-92  ;  Lett,  to  Rad.,  pp.  40-3,  116,  122,  etc. 

*  De  Sacr.  Eccl.,  p.  91.  His  allusion  to  the  prevalent  notions  regarding 
penitential  exercises  and  the  common  misconceptions  of  the  whole 
subject  takes  the  form  of  a  vehement  and  indignant  denunciation — 
Hierarchies,  pp.  15 1-2.  Erasmus,  Op.  Ill,  454c,  tells  us  that  Jean 
Vitrier,  a  pious  French  Franciscan,  uttered  a  similar  judgment  :  "  He 
used  to  condemn  the  false  confidence  of  those  who  fancied  that  when  their 
money  rattled  into  the  chest,  their  sins  were  atoned  for." 


122  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

of  the  Frenchman,  though  he  inculcated  celibacy  with 
less  reserve.1 

Where  Colet  and  Lefevre  were  in  most  complete 
accord  was  in  their  doctrine  of  the  Church.  True,  their 
treatment  of  the  doctrine  exhibited  different  aspects  of 
the  subject.  Colet  never  travelled  far  from  Dionysian 
allegory,  whilst  Lefevre  was  eminently  practical.  For 
both,  indeed,  the  Church  was  One  and  Indivisible, 
like  the  seamless  coat  of  her  Lord  ;  she  was  a  homo- 
geneous Unity,  because  One  Body  having  One  Head, 
even  Jesus  Christ  Himself.2  Accordingly,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  see  that,  whatever  defects  they  perceived 
in  the  contemporary  state  of  the  Christian  Church, 
these  did  not  affect  the  allegiance  which  they  gave  to 
her,  because,  in  fact,  they  beheld  her  in  idea,  not  as 
she  was,  but  as  the  Lord  Himself  intended  her.  That 
they  shut  their  eyes  to  the  blemishes  of  the  actual 
Church  is  very  far  from  having  been  the  case.  Over 
and  over  again,  as  they  expatiated  on  the  ideal  Church 
which  they  had  in  mind,  they  burst  out,  in  impassioned 
grief,  against  the  errors  of  their  day.3 

Between  Lefevre  and  the  critics  of  morals  and  religion, 
of  whom  there  were  many  at  that  epoch,  several 
notable  disagreements  can  be  pointed  out.  One  is 
strikingly  prominent.  Like  Colet,  with  whose  ideals 
his  own  in  the  main  corresponded,  he  was  entirely  free 
from  all  mere  captious  fault-finding,  from  acrimony 
and  anything  even  remotely  bordering  upon  sarcasm, 
whenever  he  deliberated  on  the  evils  of  the  age.  It 
is  true  that  such  censoriousness  would  have  been  quite 

1  Lett,  to  Rad.,  pp.  88-90  ;  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  262. 

8  Lea.  on  Romans,  pp.  71-85. 

3  Lefevre,  Qtuncuplex  Psalterium,  Praef.  and  comment  on  the  opening 
passage  of  Ps.  126  ;  Com.  in  Rom.  v,  14  ;  Com.  Lib.  II,  cap.  IX,  fo. 
XCIIII  vo.  (1  Cor.  ix,  4).  Observe  his  hope  of  an  early  reformation  : 
"  O  tempora  facilia  ad  salutem  :  et  quam  foelices  quos  continget  hisce 
temporibus  nasci.  O  nostra  tempora  quam  difficilia  :  et  quam  difficile 
est  salutem  in  nostris  reperiri  ?  " — Com.  Lib.  XI,  cap.  Ill,  fo.  CLXIX  vo. 
(2  Tim.  iii,  1). 


CONSERVATISM  OF  LEFfiVRE  123 

out  of  keeping  with  the  aim  of  his  books.  But  a  reason 
that  goes  deeper  is  to  be  adduced  for  the  circumstance. 
Lefevre  was  clearly — ought  we  not  perhaps  to  say  that 
he  made  himself  ? — unconscious  of  opponents.1  We 
may  say  here  of  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  what  can  indeed  be  said  of  all  his  exegetical 
works,  that  whatever  force  they  may  have  contributed 
to  the  French  Reformation  at  its  inception,  "  he  puts 
forth  no  polemic  that  enters  into  particulars,  but 
rather  only  an  indication  of  what  should  be  different 
from  what  it  has  in  reality  been,  and,  what  must,  with 
better  knowledge,  undergo  alteration." 2  His  was 
no  controversial  spirit.  Courageous  he  frequently 
showed  himself,  when  it  was  a  question  of  declaring 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth ;  but  he  never  once 
went  out  of  his  way  to  enunciate  a  portion  of  the  truth 
which  happened  to  be  unnecessary  to  the  matter  in 
hand,  and  his  boldness  consisted  chiefly  in  his  unwaver- 
ing advancement  of  independent  opinions,  though  all 
the  time  perfectly  aware  that  the  many-eyed  Sorbonne, 
only  a  short  distance  from  him,  was  keeping  a  vigilant 
outlook  for  possible  heresies. 

The  book  of  which  we  have  just  now  given  some 
particulars  did  not  aim  at  either  the  re-statement  of 
authorized  doctrines  or  the  revision  of  them.  We 
consider  this  not  a  little  remarkable.  Lefevre's 
opinions  therein  delivered  are  put  forth  in  such  a  way 
as  to  leave  the  readers  of  his  book  in  the  position  of 
being  equally  able  to  reconcile  nearly  all  his  statements 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  mediaeval  Church,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  with  the  doctrines  of  the  later  Reformed 
Churches  on  the  other — so  patent  is  the  mistake,  into 
which  some  have  fallen,3  of  regarding  Lefevre  as  supply- 

1  Barnaud,  Lefevre,  p.  44. 

1  Graf,  p.  42. 

'  M.  Barnaud,  though  usually  well  informed,  sometimes  puts  Lefevre 
in  antagonism  with  the  mediaeval  Church,  in  places  where  we  believe  a 
more  careful  examination  of  contemporary  doctrine  would  have  saved 
his  modern   biographer  a  few  misconceptions — cp.    Lefevre,  pp.  32,  35. 


i24  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

ing  in  it  a  basis  for  Protestant  Theology.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  a  Roman  Catholic  and  a  Protestant  may,  each 
with  equal  justice,  claim  Lefevre,  so  far  as  the  Com- 
ment dries  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  concerned.1  What 
has  been  already  remarked  in  reference  to  the  Quin- 
cuple  Psalter  can  be  reproduced  here.  Dogma,  as  such, 
was  never  a  prime,  or  even  a  secondary,  objective  with 
Lefevre.  The  comments,  above  termed  dogmatical, 
are,  in  truth,  merely  statements  that  arise  naturally  in 
the  course  of  exposition,  and  their  relation  to  Christian 
dogma  is  purely  accidental. 

That  this  book  has  proved  of  distinct  value  to  the 
subsequent  Reformation  is  obvious.  His  absolute 
independence  of  received  authority  in  his  comments,  his 
example  of  exercising  untrammelled  powers  of  thought 
within  the  domain  of  religion,  the  emphasis  he  laid  upon 
the  requirement  of  faith  to  render  valid  the  various  acts 
of  worship,  his  undisguised  attempt  to  elevate  worship 
into  a  spiritual  sphere,  to  infuse  a  larger  measure  of 
spiritual  activity  into  the  Church,  so  as  the  better  to 
enable  her  to  accomplish  her  holy  mission,  and  his 
earnest  recommendation  to  all  Christians  of  a  close  study 

At  the  same  time,  we  desire  to  add  that  most  of  the  passages  cited  above 
from  Lefevre's  Commentaries  are  to  be  found  marked  out  for  condem- 
nation in  the  Index  Expurgatorius  Librorum  qui  hoc  saeculo  prodierunt, 
published  by  direction  of  Philip  II  in  1599,  and  in  that  of  Quiroga  (1601). 

1  M.  Doumergue,  I,  84,  has  invented  a  title  for  the  system  of  thought 
which  Lefevre  initiated  in  this  book.  He  termed  it  "  protestantisme 
fabrisicn."  He  admitted  that,  if  "  Protestant  Reformer  "  were  to  be 
taken  as  synonymous  with  "  religious  revolutionist,"  this  name  could  not 
be  applied  to  Lefevre  :  "  Le  Fcvre  n'a  pas  brule"  la  bulle  du  pape.  Le 
Fevre  n'a  pas  6crit  l'lnstitution  chr£tienne.  Son  caractere  etait  doux, 
mdditatif,  comme  devait  l'£tre,  a  soixante  dix-sept  an9,  celui  d'un 
humaniste  mystique.  Et  son  protestantisme  a  6te"  ce  qu'il  £tait  lui-meme, 
et  ce  qu'il  devait  £tre  a  cette  6poque,  modere,  conciliant,  avec  des  hesita- 
tions et  des  contradictions  dont  la  double  raison  6taient  l'age  et  le  mysti- 
cisme."  (I,  85.)  But  Doumergue  either  does  not  know,  or  omits  to 
observe,  that  this  system  was  not  altogether  peculiar  to  the  great  Etaplois, 
that  he,  in  fact,  shared  it  to  no  small  extent  with  Colet,  Erasmus,  and 
many  others  of  his  contemporaries.  This  Protestantism  might  just  at 
well  be  called  Coletine,  Erasmian,  as  Fabrisian. 


LEFfiVRE  AT  ST.  GERMAIN-DES-PR£S  125 

of  the  Divine  Records — these,  it  cannot  be  denied,  have 
conferred  upon  Lefevre's  work  a  unique  place  in  religious 
history,  and  endowed  him  with  the  right  to  be  ever  after- 
wards hailed  as  the  first  Christian  teacher,  the  pioneer 
of  religious  thought,  of  modern  times.  To  that  extent  he 
assisted  the  Protestant  Reformation.  Lefevre  himself 
was  no  Protestant ;  but  independent  thought  in  matters 
of  religion  became  possible  for  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant  after  the  appearance  of  his  Commentaries 
on  the  Pauline  Epistles.1  This  book,  therefore,  serves 
as  a  kind  of  landmark  in  the  progress  of  Christendom 
towards  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  her  Lord  and  His 
will. 

Lefevre  was  residing  at  the  abbey  of  St.  Germain-des- 
Pres  as  the  guest  of  his  pupil  and  patron,  Guillaume  de 
Briconnet,  Bishop  of  Lodeve,  when  he  issued  the  two 
works  already  mentioned.  About  this  time,  too,  he 
gave  his  assistance  to  a  practical  scheme  of  reforma- 
tion. 

The  monks  of  this  ancient  abbey  had  become  lax  in 
their  observance  of  the  rules  of  their  order  and  addicted 
to  numerous  faults  that  urgently  needed  correction. 
Briconnet,  their  abbot,  therefore,  with  Lefevre's  help, 
endeavoured  to  introduce  a  better  state  of  things.* 
Most  of  the  monks  submitted  to  the  new,  or  rather 

1  Doumergue,  I,  86-7. 

*  Cardinal  d'Amboise,in  1499,  had  tried  to  effect  improvements  amongst 
the  monastic  orders,  especially  the  Jacobins  and  Cordeliers  of  Paris — 
Lavisse,  Hist,  de  France,  V,  147.  In  1502  it  was  found  necessary  to 
command  the  royal  officers  to  see  that  the  Cordeliers  obeyed  their 
general  for  the  restoration  of  order.  Similar  measures  took  place,  about 
this  time,  at  man}'  other  monastic  establishments.  Even  at  St.  Germain- 
de9-Prd-s,  d'Amboise  had  sought  to  enforce  beneficial  changes  with  the 
assistance  of  the  soldiery.  His  strong  measures  only  caused  greater 
confusion  and  irregularities — Graf,  p.  19. 

Mo3t  of  these  efforts  at  betterment  produced  results  of  no  serious 
consequence  :  "  Without  denying  the  importance  and  the  sincerity  of 
these  attempts,  they  appear  to  have  been,  for  the  most  part  at  least,  only 
a  means  of  distracting  attention  and  preventing  a  more  thorough  inves- 
tigation"— Lavisse.  Htst.  de  France,  V.  341. 


126  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

restored,  conditions.  Some,  however,  preferred  to 
depart,  and  their  places  were  speedily  filled  with  a  more 
docile  and  worthy  company. 

Erasmus  was  pursuing  his  studies  at  Cambridge, 
whilst  Lefevre  was  engaged  in  publishing  his  Pauline 
Commentaries.  In  the  light  of  after  events,  the 
labours  of  the  great  Dutch  scholar  during  his  resi- 
dence at  the  English  University  were  of  paramount 
importance. 

On  his  arrival  he  experienced  great  disappointment. 
He  had  come  to  please  his  friend,  Bishop  Fisher,  who 
was  eager  that  the  study  of  Greek  should  be  introduced 
into  his  University  by  such  a  notable  scholar.  Fisher's 
plans,  conceived  no  doubt  for  the  benefit  of  the  Uni- 
versity, of  which  he  was  Chancellor,  had  probably 
possessed  attractions  for  Erasmus.  The  latter  had  his 
own  peculiar  hopes  and  projects.  But  they  did  not 
include  the  pioneer  labours  that  Fisher  expected  him 
to  undertake.  Although  to  be  the  introducer  of  Greek 
studies  at  Cambridge  would  form  a  proud  title  to  esteem, 
and  one  moreover  which  must  be  accorded  to  Erasmus, 
yet  that  was  very  far  from  being  the  object  he  had  in 
view  when  he  accepted  Fisher's  invitation.  The  truth 
of  the  matter  was  that  Erasmus  was  engaged  upon 
important  works  for  which  he  needed  supplies,  and  the 
post  of  Greek  lecturer  at  Cambridge  seemed  to  afford 
him  the  prospect  of  obtaining  them. 

But  when  he  reached  the  University  he  found  that 
his  expectations  could  not  be  realized  as  abundantly  as 
he  desired.  Hence  the  bitter  irony  of  the  words  he 
wrote  to  Colet  :  "At  last  I  behold  the  footprints  of 
Christian  poverty!"  At  that  time  he  had  not  made  a 
beginning  of  lecturing,  but  he  saw  clearly  enough  that 
Cambridge  was  no  gold  mine,  and  he  wanted  money 
sorely.  A  few  weeks  later,  his  letter  to  Colet  (13th 
September)  reveals  him  occupied  with  some  minor 
Greek  treatises.  Evidently,  he  had  not  yet  engaged 
upon  any  work  of  importance.     Perhaps  these  smaller 


ERASMUS   AT   CAMBRIDGE  127 

works  were  merely  intended  as  a  means  of  getting  from 
patrons  the  funds  necessary  for  prosecuting  the  greater ; 
his  allusion  to  a  hope  of  a  present  from  Fisher  makes  this 
surmise  natural.  In  the  same  letter  a  hint  was  thrown 
out  by  Erasmus  of  an  intention  of  withdrawing  from 
Cambridge  altogether.  He  expressed  this  more 
definitely  in  a  letter  of  5th  October  to  the  same  corre- 
spondent.1 Colet,  therefore,  in  answer  to  the  epistle  of 
13th  September,2  uttered  the  wish,  which  he  neverthe- 
less did  not  expect  would  be  fulfilled,  that  Erasmus 
would  become  a  master  in  the  new  school,  "  but,"  he 
added,  "  I  still  cherish  a  hope  that  thou  wilt  give  us 
some  assistance,  even  if  it  be  in  the  education  of  our 
teachers,  when  thou  leavest  those  Cambridge  people." 
The  biblical  teacher  appeared  in  a  piece  of  advice  he 
gave  to  Erasmus  :  "  Continue  thy  labours  on  Basil, 
for  thus  thou  givest  Isaiah  to  us." 

In  the  closing  paragraphs  of  his  letter,  Colet  made 
merry  over  Erasmus's  continual  petitions  for  money. 
True,  the  latter  had  not  asked  him  for  any,  on  this 
occasion,  but  the  Dean  fancied  that  hints  of  that  kind 
were  to  be  read  between  the  lines  of  an  epistle  which 
mentioned  the  indigence  of  another  scholar.  Accord- 
ingly, though  he  told  Erasmus  he  would  send  some 
money  to  him,  he  made  the  offer  in  such  a  manner  as 
wounded  the  susceptibilities  of  the  great  savant.  Colet 
truly  was  the  soul  of  generosity  where  his  pet  scheme 
of  the  school  was  in  question,  but  he  displayed  no 
marked  liberality  outside  of  it.  Indeed,  he  himself 
admitted  a  consciousness  of  this  fault.3 

To  Colet's  letter,  therefore,  Erasmus  replied  on  29th 
October  with  a  lengthy  epistle4  in  which  he  showed  how 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  109F.  He  forwarded  this  ep.  before  he  had  received 
the  reply  to  his  letter  of  13th  September. 

2  Ibid.,  1523  et  seq. 

3  Ibid.,  458A.  He  hardly  deserves  Nisard's  strictures,  however: 
"  (Colet)  repondait  aux  demandes  d'argent  d'£rasme  par  des  vceux  pour 
que  Dieu  l'assistat,  et  par  des  compliments  sur  sa  gloire  " — Etudes,  p. 
164.  4  Eras.  Op..  Ill,  131D-133A. 


128  DEMANDS  FOR  ECCLESIASTICAL  REFORM 

hurt  he  was  at  the  tone  of  Colet's  allusions  to  his 
perpetual  quest  for  the  funds  needed  to  carry  on  his 
great  biblical  studies.  The  concluding  portion  of  this 
interesting  letter  contains  the  account  of  an  incident 
which  occurred  at  Cambridge  and  which  serves  to  throw 
light  upon  the  difficulties  that  then  stood  in  the  way 
of  attempts  to  diffuse  education  and  knowledge  through- 
out the  country  : — 

I  have  just  remembered  something  which  will  amuse 
thee.  I  was  mentioning  the  subject  of  the  under- 
teacher  amongst  the  Masters,  when  one  of  them  smil- 
ing, said  :  "  Who  would  pass  his  life  teaching  boys  if 
he  could  live  by  any  other  means?  "  I  answered  that 
the  labour  of  instructing  youth  in  good  manners  and 
literature  seemed  to  me  honourable  above  measure, 
that  even  Christ  did  not  contemn  that  age,  and  that 
nowhere  else  could  more  plenteous  results  be 
obtained,  since  that  was  the  cornfield  and  forest  of  the 
commonwealth.  I  added  that  many  holy  men  were 
of  the  same  opinion,  and  held  that  nothing  would  be 
so  meritorious  in  the  sight  of  God  as  leading  the 
young  to  Christ.  He,  wrinkling  his  nose  (corrugato 
naso),  replied  mockingly  :  "  If  anyone  wishes  to  serve 
Christ  at  all,  let  him  enter  a  monastery  and  religion." 
To  which  I  rejoined  that  Paul  makes  true  religion  con- 
sist in  works  of  charity,  and  that  charity  lies  in  this, 
that  we  should  benefit  our  neighbours  as  much  as  we 
can.  He  opposed  this,  as  being  unskilfully  said.  ''Be- 
hold me  have  left  all,  in  this,"  said  he,  "is  perfection." 
"  He  has  not  left  all,"  I  retorted,  "  who,  when  he  is 
able  to  benefit  many  persons  by  his  toil,  declines  the 
work  because  it  is  esteemed  inferior."  Then  I  dis- 
missed the  man  to  avoid  an  argument.  Gaze  upon  the 
wisdom  of  the  Scotist,  and  thou  canst  imagine  the 
conversation. 

Possibly,  skirmishes  of  the  kind  here  mentioned, 
between  the  new  ideals  and  the  old,  were  frequent,  and 
served  to  render  Erasmus  even  still  more  discontented 
with  life  at  Cambridge.  A  few  days  after  he  had  sent 
his  long  epistle  to  Colet,  he  wrote  (2nd  November)  to 


ERASMUS  DEPARTS  FROM  CAMBRIDGE    129 

Ammonius  declaring  that  he  would  come  up  to  London 
by  1st  January,  that  Cambridge  was  all  very  well  to 
pass  the  summer  in,  but  in  the  winter  was  quite 
intolerable.1  He  added,  in  a  letter  of  nth  November 
to  the  same  friend,  the  further  intimation  of  a  desire 
to  be  near  St.  Paul's  when  he  came  to  London.2  By 
this  he  may  have  meant  that  he  wished  to  enjoy  Colet's 
society,  or  to  give  the  assistance  to  the  Coletine  school 
for  which  the  Dean  had  asked. 

As  an  actual  fact,  Erasmus  came  up  to  London  early 
in  1512,  but  remained  only  a  few  weeks  there,  returning 
to  Cambridge  somewhat  hastily  in  the  beginning  of 
February.  The  rest  of  15 12,  and  a  good  portion  of 
1513,  was  spent  by  him  in  study  at  the  University. 
During  this  time— a  time  probably  of  no  greater  con- 
tentment but  certainly  of  greater  silence  on  his  part 
than  usual — those  studies  advanced  rapidly  which 
have  brought  Erasmus  more  enduring  fame  than  all 
the  rest  of  his  labours  put  together.  At  length,  on  31st 
October,  15 13,  the  letter  that  he  wrote  to  congratulate 
Colet  upon  his  return  to  peaceful  work  at  St.  Paul's, 
contained  a  hint  that  the  great  biblical  work  of  Erasmus 
was  nearing  completion  : — 

If  St.  Matthew  is  not  with  thee,  then  it  is  with  (the 
Bishop  of)  Rochester,  as  indeed  I  much  suspect.  But 
as  I  had  given  it  separately,  he  did  not  join  it  with  the 
others.  If  it  be  lost,  I  will  put  the  blame  upon  my- 
self, and  the  trouble  of  doing  the  work  over  again  will 
be  a  punishment  to  me  for  my  heedlessness.' 

Not  long  after  he  wrote  this,  Erasmus  terminated 
finally  his  official  connection  with  Cambridge.  In 
January,  1514,  he  removed  to  London.  It  was  not  the 
result  of  any  sudden  resolve.  He  had  been  maturing 
his  plans,   and  the  particular  studies  which  he  had 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1 12c. 

*  Such  probably  is  the  interpretation  to  be  put  on  the  phrase  :   "  MaU- 
lem  non  abesse  longius  a  Paulo  "— -  Ibid.,  I2CC, 
a  Ibid.,  io'n, 


130 DEMANDS    uK  ECCLES1  ISTICAL REFORM 

decided  upon  can)  >.>.%  through  hi  had  now  finished.  To 
speak  thus  would  perhaps  present  the  famous  scholar 
in  an  unfavourable  iight,  as  if  '.is  whole  sojourn  and 
work  in  Cambridge  had  been  part  of  an  effort  of  his 
merely  to  obtain  time  and  money  to  accomplish  his 
own  peculiar  schemes,  without  any  serious  desire  to 
repay  his  patrons  adequately  for  the  benefits  of  which 
he  was  the  recipient.  It  is  much  truer  to  fact,  however, 
to  say  that  those  years  of  isolation  and  seclusion  which 
Erasmus  passed  at  the  University  left  a  permanent 
impiess  upon  the  character  of  that  seat  of  learning — 
indeed  a  much  more  profound  result  than  Erasmus 
himself  suspected.  For,  later  on,  when  he  described 
the  beneficial  effects  of  Fisher's  authority  at  Cambridge, 
and  traced  to  that  estimable  man  everything  that  was 
admirable  and  hopeful  about  the  University,  he  made 
no  mention  of  his  own  ascendancy,  with  reference  to 
the  course  of  studies  there,  over  Fisher.  Perhaps  he 
was  unaware  of  it.  Nevertheless,  it  is  certain  that 
"  Erasmus's  influence  over  Fisher,  and  through  Fisher 
over  Cambridge  at  large,  was  far  greater  and  more 
enduring  than  their  respective  biographers  would  lead 
us  to  suppose."1  The  subsequent  history  of  the 
University  reveals  the  accuracy  of  this  remark. 

Mr.  Mullinger  has  an  excellent  description  of  the  last 
days  of  Erasmus's  sojourn  in  Queen's  College,  which 
may  well  be  quoted  here,  as  it  is  no  less  consonant  with 
fact  than  imaginative  in  representation  : — 

Such  then  is  the  final  glimpse  that  we  gain  of 
Erasmus  at  Cambridge — it  is  that  of  a  solitary, 
isolated  scholar,  prematurely  old  with  anxiety  and 
toil,  weighed  down  by  physical  suffering,  dejected  by 
disappointment,  and  oppressed  with  debt ;  rarely 
venturing  beyond  the  college  gates,  and  then  only  to 
encounter  hostile  or  indifferent  glances ;  while  all 
around   there   waited    for   him   an   invisible   foe — the 

1  Mullinger,  Univ.  of  Camb..,  pp.  497-8,  and  508.  See  also  Allen, 
Bras.  Epp.,  I,  591. 


HIS  LAST  DAYS  AT  CAMBRIDGE        131 

pestilence  that  walketh  at  noon-day ;  often  by  night, 
in  his  study  high  up  in  the  south-west  tower,  "  out- 
watching  the  Bear  "  over  the  pages  of  St.  Jerome, 
even  as  Jerome  himself  had  outwatched  it  many  a 
night,  when  transcribing  the  same  pages  in  his 
Bethlehem  cell,  some  eleven  hundred  years  before. 
Then  winter  came  on,  and  towards  the  close  of  each 
shortening  day  Erasmus  could  mark  from  his  window 
the  white  fogs  rolling  in  from  the  surrounding 
marshes,  reminding  him  of  the  climate  he  most  of  all 
disliked — the  climate  of  his  native  Holland — while  day 
after  day  the  sound  of  footsteps,  in  the  courts  below, 
grew  rarer  and  rarer.  At  last  the  gloom,  the  soli- 
tude, the  discomfort,  and  the  panic,  became  more  than 
he  could  bear;  and,  one  night,  the  customary  lamp  no 
longer  gleamed  from  a  certain  casement  in  the  south- 
west tower.  And  when  the  fear  of  the  plague  was 
over,  and  the  university  returned,  it  was  known  that 
Erasmus  had  left  Cambridge;  and  no  doubt  many  a 
sturdy  defender  of  the  old  learning  said  he  was  very 
glad  to  hear  it,  and  heartily  hoped  that  all  this  stir 
about  Greek,  and  St.  Jerome,  and  errors  in  the 
Vulgate,  was  at  an  end.1 

1  Mullinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  506. 


CHAPTER  VI 

GERMANY  BEFORE  LUTHER  (15H-I516).    THE 
REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY 

Germany  truly,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  stood  in  marked  contrast  with  the  other 
nations  of  western  Europe. 

In  France,  the  royal  power,  by  means  of  the  slow 
and  cautious  efforts  of  Charles  VII  and  the  astute 
policy  of  his  son  and  successor  Louis  XI,  had  begun 
to  constitute  itself  the  centre  of  authority  in  the  land. 
It  followed  that  the  French  nation  was  in  possession  of 
a  strong  central  government  which  made  for  civic 
peace  and  unity.1 

Ferdinand  and  Isabella  had  also,  by  methods  that 
bore  some  resemblances  to  those  pursued  by  the  French 
monarchs,  succeeded  in  establishing  their  authority 
over  the  whole  of  the  Iberian  peninsula,  except  that 
part  which  belonged  to  Portugal.  As  in  France,  the 
monarchy  was  the  centre  around  which  the  nation 
gathered.  Hitherto  Spain  had  had,  in  truth,  no  sense 
of  nationality,  yet,  so  completely  did  the  conjoint 
sovereigns  accomplish  the  work  of  consolidation  that, 
by  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  they  had 
firmly  laid  the  foundations  of  that  glory  and  eminence 

1  Robertson  (William,  D.D.),  Hist,  of  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor  Charles 
V,  Dublin,  1770,  I,  94-101  ;  Guizot,  Hist,  de  France,  Paris,  1875, 
II.  367-70,  443;  Lavisse,  Hist,  de  France,  IV,  pt.  2,  116,  399-410; 
Duclos  Hist,  of  Lewis  XI,  Eng.  trans.,  Dublin,  1746,  II,  336  et  seq. 

'3* 


TENDENCY  TOWARDS  CENTRALIZATION     133 

to  which  the  Spanish  nation  attained  in  later  years.1 
Of  European  nations  the  only  one  which  could  with 
truth  be  described  as  having  emerged  from  the  middle 
ages  with  most  of  the  qualifications  of  a  compact 
nationality  was  the  English.  The  Wars  of  the  Roses 
had  brought  the  greater  barons  to  destruction,  and 
feudalism  in  England  may  be  said  to  have  come  to  an 
end  at  the  Battle  of  Bos  worth.  Under  the  Tudor  sway 
all  classes  of  Englishmen  had  awakened  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  a  nationality  in  which  all  had  a  common  interest.2 
As  in  France  and  Spain,  the  English  king  formed  the 
centre  of  authority  and  the  bond  of  union  in  the  nation, 
but  with  this  difference  :  that  the  nation  had  compacted 
itself  into  a  close  national  unity  which  found  its  ex- 
pression in  a  centralized  government.  The  tendency 
of  the  times  in  all  races  was  towards  consolidation,  but 
consolidation  had  here  reached  a  stage  far  in  advance 
of  anything  that  had  been  conceived  elsewhere.3 

Nor  was  Germany  free  from  the  tendency  of  the  age  ; 
but  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  nation  had  given 
it  a  direction  different  from  that  which  it  had  taken  in 
other  lands.  It  is  true  that  the  Emperor,  if  regard  be 
paid  to  the  grandiloquent  titles  he  enjoyed,  wielded 
an  authority  of  the  most  extensive  and  arbitrary  kind. 
The  titles,  however,  descended  from  times  when  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  they  signified  were  real  and 
substantial,  and  they  continued  their  existence  even 
after  the  powers  they  denoted  had  disappeared.  In 
actual  fact,  towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
the  last  of  the  dominions  which  belonged  to  the  empire 
had  been  alienated,*  and  from  that  time  "  not  a  single 
city,  a  single  castle,  a  single  foot  of  land  pertained  to 
the  Emperor  as  head  of  the  Empire."5  The  power  of 
each  Emperor,  as  well  as  his  resources,  came,  in  fact, 

1  Prcscott  (\V.  H.),  Hist,  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  London,  1857, 
I,  246-90  ;  cp.  also  II,  chapters  I  to  IV. 

2  Green  (J.  R.),  Hist,  of  the  English  People,  II,  15. 
8  Hume,  Hist,  of  Englan  I,  III,  395-400. 

4  Robertson,  Charles  /',  I,  Note  XLF. 
*Ibid.,\,  182,  and  Note  XI  I. 


134        THE   REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY 

from  the  possessions  which  he  held  apart  from  his 
imperial  rank.  Consequently,  his  authority  over 
Germany  was  as  limited  as  his  throne  was  imaginary. 
Germany,  indeed,  had  no  real  master,  but  then,  as  a 
national  entity,  there  was  no  such  country  as  Germany. 
This  name  was  only  a  collective  term  applied  to  the 
totality  of  the  German  States,  which  were  numerous, 
varied  in  extent  and  importance,  and  were  ruled,  pro- 
tected, and  administered  by  princes,  who,  within  their 
own  domains,  exercised  a  sovereign  authority  which 
they  had  wrested  from  the  Emperors.  "  Each  (feudal 
unit)  had  its  estates,  its  court  without  appeal,  its 
territorial  army,  its  own  system  of  finance,  a  large 
measure  of  control  over  its  clergy,  its  own  foreign 
policy."1  It  followed,  therefore,  that  the  tendency 
towards  centralization,  so  far  from  augmenting  the 
imperial  power,  reinforced  the  influence  of  the  numerous 
petty  sovereigns.  These  princes  became  the  nuclei 
round  which  consolidation  took  place.  This  concen- 
tration of  authority,  not  in  the  hands  of  one  powerful 
monarch,  but  of  many  inferior  princes,  though  it  may 
have  benefited  the  inhabitants  of  the  several  German 
States,  had  a  further  effect  in  rendering  any  concerted 
action  for  an  imperial  design  more  and  more  difficult.' 

Throughout  this  disjointed  race  the  disturbances, 
industrial,  economic,  and  social,  were  at  work,  which 
had  already  burst  out  in  the  Tyler-Ball  insurrection  in 
England  and  in  the  Jacquerie  in  France,  but  had  now 
almost  completely  disappeared  from  these  countries. 
Apart  from  these  influences,  however,  the  movements, 
literary  and  religious,  which  had  begun  to  influence  the 
Christian  peoples  of  western  Europe,  had  not  less  effect 
upon  the  German  mind  of  the  same  epoch. 

The  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century,  therefore, 

1  Armstrong  (E.),  The  Emperor  Charles  J7,  London,  1902, 1,  45. 

•  Lindsay  (Thomas  M.,  M.A.,  D.D.),  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,  Edin- 
burgh, 1906,  I,  338  ;  Stubbs  (Bishop  W.),  Germany  in  the  Later  Miidlt 
Ages  (1 200-1 500),  edited  by  Arthur  Hassall,  M.A.,  London,  1908,  fr>. 
1 84-6,  207  et  >eq. 


TENDENCIES  OF  THE  AGE  IN  GERMANY    135 

affords  the  spectacle  of  a  Germany,  restless  and  full  of 
revolt  against  what  seemed  to  be  wrongs  and  oppressions, 
yet  scarcely  capable,  through  lack  of  national  unity, 
of  stating  definitely  her  desires.  A  multitude  of  difficult 
problems  mingled  together  and  confused,  with  their 
manifold  complications,  the  various  questions  at  issue. 
New  social  conditions  were  taking  the  place  of  the  old. 
Ancient  legal  systems,  with  which  the  countryfolk  had 
grown,  by  long  custom,  familiar  and  contented,  had 
been  superseded,  and  the  newly-introduced  Roman  Law 
appeared  to  be  nothing  else  than  a  modern  invention 
for  legalizing  injustice  and  tyranny.  These  changes 
were  accompanied  by  others  which  multiplied  the 
number  of  taxes  to  be  borne  and  increased  the  amount 
to  be  paid  on  each  of  them.1  In  all  these  matters,  the 
hierarchy,  rightly  or  wrongly,  obtained  the  reputation 
of  being  the  chief  offenders,  and,  long  before  Luther 
arose,  the  German  peasant  and  townsman  had  learnt 
to  regard  with  bitter  hatred  the  whole  ecclesiastical 
organization.  Humanism,  with  its  opposition  to  the 
prevalent  scholastic  philosophy,  its  insistent  claim  to 
independence  of  thought,  and  its  unconcealed  sceptical 
attitude  towards  the  religion  of  the  day,  added  a  further 
supply,  and  that  an  abundant  one,  to  the  already 
numerous  complexities  of  German  life.  Consequently, 
if  the  history  of  the  German  race,  from  the  opening  of 
the  century  to  the  Peasants'  War  of  1525,  be  found  to 
consist  of  a  series  of  revolts,  economic,  literary,  religious, 
this  is  not  inexplicable.  Each  outburst,  moreover, 
was,  at  least  to  some  extent,  provoked  by  the  in- 
centives of  the  other  ;  not  one  of  them  had  a  simple 
issue  in  view.  For  example,  the  forces  and  energies 
that  belonged  to  the  several  peasant  risings  entered 
into,  not  only  the  religious  contest  under  Luther,  and 
the  revolt  of  the  knighthood  under  Franz  von  Sickingen, 

1  See  Bax  (E.  Belfort),  German  Society,  etc.,  chap.  VII,  "  Country  and 
Town  at  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  and  chap.  VIII,  "  The  New  Juris- 
prudence "  ;  also  Robertson,  Charles  /',  I,  Notes  Y,  Z,  AA,  BB. 


136       THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

but,  earlier  than  either  of  these,  the  literary  contest 
under  Reuchlin.1 

The  last-named  is  momentous.  During  its  weari- 
some, protracted  course  the  many-sided  spirit  of  revolt 
displayed  itself.  It  has  been  named  the  true  com- 
mencement of  the  German  Reformation,  but,  whether 
the  description  can  be  maintained  or  not,  one  thing  is 
certain,  that  the  Reuchlin  controversy  only  ended 
when  the  Lutheran  overshadowed  it. 

The  central  figure  of  this  celebrated  literary  war, 
John  Reuchlin,  was  born  at  Pforzheim  in  1455,  of 
parents  who  were  worthy  people  but  of  no  remarkable 
station  in  life.2  In  early  youth  Reuchlin's  love  of 
learning  attracted  the  notice  of  Charles,  Margrave  of 
Baden-Durlach.  This  was  the  first  important  event  in 
his  career,  inasmuch  as  it  provided  for  him  other  pro- 
fitable opportunities.3  According  to  a  fairly  common 
habit  of  the  times,  he  pursued  his  studies  not  at  one 
university  but  at  several.  For  instance,  he  began,  as 
a  boy  of  15,  at  Freiburg-in-Breisgau,  visited  Paris,  took 
his  B.A.  degree  at  Basle,  returned  to  Paris  for  the  sake 
of  gaining  additional  knowledge  of  Greek,  and  then 
passed  on  to  the  Law  University  of  Orleans  to  take  up 
the  serious  business  of  his  life.  Here  he  proceeded  to 
the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Civil  Law.  Thence  he  went 
to  Poitiers  in  furtherance  of  the  same  legal  studies,  and 
became  a  Licentiate.4  Fully  equipped  as  a  lawyer,  he 
migrated  to  the  newly-founded  University  of  Tubingen, 
intending,  perhaps,  to  lecture  there  on  Law.  But 
Count  Eberhard  of  Wurtemberg  attached  him  to 
himself  in   the   capacity   of  secretary   or   interpreter 

1  Bax,  op.  cit.,  pp.  38-9,  51-73  ;  also  his  Peasants'  War  in  Germany, 
London,  1899,  PP-  9"'3>  !9"28,  etc.  ;  Armstrong,  Charles  F,  I,  205-16. 

*Majus  (Jo.  Henric),  Vita  Jo.  Reuchlini  Phorcensis,  Francofurti 
&  Spirae,  1687,  pp.  139-40.  For  some  particulars  concerning  Reuchlin's 
family,  see  Praef.  ad  Lectorem  and  pp.  140  et  seq. 

3  Lilly  (W.  S.),  Renaissance  Types,  London,  1901,  p.  179. 

4  Majus,  pp.  151,  165,  and  169. 


REUCHLINS  TRAVELS  137 

during  a  journey  into  Italy  (1482). 1  On  his  return  to 
Stuttgart,  the  Count  appointed  him  Assessor  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  In  the  following  year  (1483),  the 
Dominican  order  conferred  on  him  the  honour  of  being 
their  Proctor  in  Germany.  Reuchlin  thus  became  the 
chosen  champion  of  that  order,  and  held  the  position 
for  nearly  thirty  years  without  any  adequate  recom- 
pense. This  is  a  matter  worthy  of  note  in  relation  to 
subsequent  events. 

Another  Italian  journey  that  Reuchlin  undertook 
in  1492,  as  the  companion  of  Ludwig,  a  natural  son  of 
Count  Eberhard,  had  marked  effect  on  his  mental 
development.  He  stayed  there  for  nearly  a  year,  during 
which  time  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  Hermolaus 
Barbarus  who  Hellenized  his  name  into  Capnion,  or 
Capnio  (that  is,  Smoke,  which  is  the  meaning  of 
Reuchlin  in  German),  by  which  cognomen  the  human- 
ists generally  delighted  to  call  him,  though  Reuchlin 
himself  rarely,  if  ever,  employed  it.  He  also  entered 
into  a  friendship  with  Giovanni  Pico  della  Mirandola, 
that  extraordinary,  but  not  unlovable,  mystical  striver 
after  the  omne  scibilc — a  friendship  fraught  with 
momentous  results  to  the  course  of  both  his  studies 
and  his  later  life.  Pico  exerted  a  profound  influence 
upon  the  German  visitor.  Traces,  neither  few  nor 
insignificant,  of  that  influence  appeared  in  the  turn 
Reuchlin's  mind  took  about  this  time  towards 
mysticism,  the  Jewish  Cabbala,  and  studies  in  the 
Hebrew  language. 

Pico  entertained,  in  common  with  most  of  the  Neo- 
Platonists  of  Florence,  the  conviction  that  Platonism, 

1  Stokes  (F.  G.),  Epistolae  Obscurorum  J'irorum,  London,  1909,  p. 
xxvii.  Majus,  in  two  places  (pp.  19  and  170),  gives  1487  as  the  date 
of  this  journey.  Reuchlin  (ep.  to  Leo  X,  March,  1517 — see  Ludwig 
Geiger,  Johatin  Reuchlins  Brieftvechsel,  Tubingen,  1875,  P-  2^9)  savs  : 
"  Igitur  in  Italiam  profectus  cum  illustri  Eberhardo  Probo  Suevorum 
nostra  aetate  primo  Duce,  cui  a  Secretis  fiebam  intravi  Florentiam 
circitcr  \z  Kalcndas  Apriles  Anno  Christi  1482."  Perhaps  Majus,  when 
he  was  writing  out  the  date,  by  mistake  put  septimo  for  secundo. 


138        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

indeed  all  philosophy  and  mythology,  was  reconcilable 
with  Christian  doctrine  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  that,  all 
knowledge  and  religion  being  presumed  the  same  in 
essence,  both  Christianity  and  Platonism  ought  to  be 
viewed  as  merely  parts  of  the  one  great  truth. 

Ficino  and  his  disciple  Pico  would  trace  a  unity,  a 
common  principle  in  all  philosophies  and  all  religions; 
Plato  should  embrace  Aristotle,  Christianity, 
Judaism.  .  .  .  All  philosophy,  all  fable  was  but  the 
medium  through  which  the  hidden  wisdom  of  the  God- 
head was  revealed.  Plato  and  Aristotle,  Moses  and 
Timasus,  Zoroaster  and  Pythagoras,  Bacchus  and 
the  Prophets,  the  Muses  and  the  Sybils  were  fellow- 
witnesses  of  the  faith.1 

Pico  went  further  than  his  master,  and  was  disposed 
to  seek  in  the  Jewish  Cabbala  the  harmony  of  pagan 
philosophy  with  the  teachings  of  Christ.  The  study  of 
the  Cabbala  demanded  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  tongues.  These,  therefore,  Pico 
learned,  and  included  Arabic  also  within  the  scope  of 
his  studies. 

Reuchlin's  intercourse  with  Pico  affected  the  current 
of  his  thoughts,  and,  in  consequence,  his  mind  became 
so  engrossed  by  the  wonderful  mysteries  contained  in  the 
Cabbala  that  he  followed  his  new  friend's  example  and 
entered  on  the  study  of  the  Semitic  languages. 

When  he  had  returned  to  Germany,  he  was  despatched 
on  an  embassy  to  the  Imperial  Court  at  Linz.  The 
Emperor  Frederick  was  impressed  with  the  excellent 
character  of  the  ambassador  and  ennobled  him.1  On 
this  occasion  Reuchlin  came  into  contact  with  a  Jew 
named  Loans,  from  whom  he  received  considerable 
instruction  in  the  Hebrew  tongue. 

Changes  in  the  principality  of  Wurtemberg  conse- 
quent on  the  death  of  his  patron  compelled  Reuchlin 

1  Armstrong,  Lorenzo  de'  Medici,  pp.  340-7.  Cp.  Villari,  Savonarola, 
I,  59  et  seq.,  and  an  excellent  chapter  (vol.  I,  chap.  V)  in  Harford, 
Michael  Angelo  Buonarroti. 

*  Mains,  pp.  173-81,  gives  the  patent  of  nobility. 


ORIENTAL  STUDIES  139 

to  retire  to  Heidelberg  for  safety.  Here  Philip,  the 
Elector-Palatine,  took  him  into  his  employment  as 
Privy  Councillor,  sending  him  in  that  capacity  to  Rome 
on  a  mission.  Once  again,  Reuchlin  found  himself  able 
to  turn  his  enforced  travels  to  the  advantage  of  his 
studies,  for  in  Rome  he  met  with  another  Jew,  Obadyah 
Sforno,  who  gave  him  some  assistance  in  his  Hebraic 
researches. 

A  short  time  after  this,  circumstances  occurred  which 
permitted  him  to  resume  his  home-life  in  Stuttgart, 
and  he  was  still  resident  there  when,  in  1502,  he 
received  promotion  from  the  princes  of  the  Swabian 
League1  to  the  most  exalted  and  responsible  position 
he  had  yet  held,  that  of  Confederate  Judge. 

Amidst  all  the  multifarious  duties  incident  upon  his 
legal  profession,  Reuchlin  continued  his  Latin,  Greek, 
and  Hebraic  studies.  These  constitute  his  title  to 
enduring  fame.  For,  if  Erasmus  deserves  to  be  remem- 
bered because  he  introduced  the  New  Testament  in  its 
original  Greek  to  the  Christian  world,  Reuchlin  merits 
even  higher  honour,  because  he  not  only  introduced 
the  Old  Testament  in  its  original  Hebrew,  but  also,  by 
his  labours,  facilitated  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. Indeed,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  it  was  he 
who  opened  the  treasures  of  oriental  literature  to 
Europe." 

His  interest  in  the  Hebrew  language  caused  Reuchlin 
to  seek  intercourse  with  learned  Jews.  As  a  perfectly 
natural  consequence,  his  interest  in  their  books  ex- 
tended itself  to  their  persons.  He  appears  to  have 
borne  a  deep  affection  for  Loans  whom  he  calls  his 
"  most  gentle  teacher,"  and  the  personal  acquaintance 
he  had  with  other  Jews  aroused  in  him  a  kindly  dis- 
position towards  the  whole  race.    But  Reuchlin  was  a 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  226-34. 

*  Stokes,  p.  xxvl  :  "  a  pioneer  among  Orientalists,  so  that  it  has 
been  said  of  him,  enthusiastically  but  not  unjustly,  that  he  was  the  '  first 
who  opened  the  gates  of  the  East,  unsealed  the  Word  of  God,  and  un- 
veiled the  sanctuary  of  Hebrew  wisdom.'  " 


140        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

faithful  Christian.  In  1505,  accordingly,  he  published 
a  pamphlet  entitled  :  "  Doctor  Johanns  Reuclilins 
tiitsch  missiue  :  warumb  die  Jude  so  lang  im  ellend 
sind,"  in  which  he  examined  into  the  causes  why  the 
Jews  suffer  a  long  and  miserable  exile.  He  concluded 
that  this  was  due  to  their  obstinate  denial  of  Christ. 
He  thf  refore  issued  an  invitation  to  any  Jew  who  wished 
for  instruction  in  the  Christian  faith  to  come  to  him. 
Bui  though  desirous  of  their  conversion  to  Christianity, 
he  cor  d  by  no  means  approve  of  any  attempt  to  carry 
out  this  worthy  object  by  a  system  of  persecution. 
Reuchlin's  ideal  plan  was  the  more  reasonable  and 
CI  istian  method  of  persuasion  and  instruction.  His 
views  were  soon  to  bring  him  into  a  controversy, 
dangerous  to  himself,  of  importance  in  the  history  of 
western  Europe,  and  entailing  consequences  for 
ecclesiastical  authority  which  none  of  the  original 
combatants  realized  at  their  first  entrance  into  it. 

This  memorable  controversy  arose  through  an  in- 
significant Jewish  convert,  John  Pfefferkorn,  whose 
character  would  seem  to  have  been  very  questionable.1 
Erasmus  has  described  him  as  a  man  who  "  from  a 
disreputable  Jew  became  a  still  more  disreputable 
Christian"2;  and  besides  the  usually  cited  reasons  for 
believing  Erasmus's  estimate  of  him  not  inaccurate, 
some  additional  grounds  have  been  discovered. 
Pfefferkorn's  adoption  of  Christianity  may,  therefore, 
very  well  have  proceeded,  as  was  long  ago  alleged,  from 
fear  of  the  consequences  of  his  evil  deeds.3    However 

1  Guilhelmus  Bricot  {Epistolae  Obscurorum  Virorum,  Teubner's 
edit.,  Lipsiae,  1858,  II,  Ep.  54)  implies  an  evil  reputation  to  Pfefferkorn 
and  adds  that  now  he  is  baptized  "  et  ergo  nunc  est  probus  sicut  non 
dubito." 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1639D.  Majus,  p.  34,  relates  that  Pfefferkorn  had 
announced  himself  to  his  fellow-Jews  as  a  Messiah,  and  then  turned 
Christian  through  fear  of  the  consequences  of  the  imposture.  But,  says 
Majus,  p.  254,  this  one  title  to  honour  belongs  to  him  :  he  remained  a 
faithful  Christian  to  the  end  of  his  days. 

3  Stokes,  p.  xxii. 


ATTEMPTS    TO    MAKE     CONVERTS       141 

that  may  be,  the  convert  followed  up  his  baptism  with 
zealous  efforts  for  the  evangelization  of  the  Jews  in 
Germany,  principally  by  means  of  pamphlets  written 
by  him  in  German  and  translated  into  Latin  by  some 
one  else.  The  nature  of  these  can  easily  be  inferred 
from  one  which  he  wrote  at  the  beginning  of  1509  under 
the  title  Der  Juden  Veindt :  Hostis  Judaeorum.  In 
it  he  maintained  that  the  Jews  undertook  the  medical 
profession  for  the  express  purpose  of  destroying 
Christians,  and  he  volunteered  the  advice  that  they 
should  be  made  scavengers  instead  !  The  most  import- 
ant thing  in  this  pamphlet  is  an  epigram  composed  by 
Ortuinus  Gratius,  an  eminent  theologian  of  Cologne, 
who  thus  appears  publicly  for  the  first  time  in  con- 
nection with  Pfefferkorn,  although  probably  it  had 
been  he  who  had  hitherto  translated  the  convert's 
tracts  into  Latin.1  A  more  notorious  pamphlet  {Der 
Judcnspiegel)  was  produced  by  Pfefferkorn  about  the 
same  time,  in  which,  amongst  other  things,  he  advo- 
cated that  the  Jews  should  be  deprived  of  their  books, 
because  these,  said  he,  hindered  their  conversion. 
With  the  countenance  and  support  of  the  Dominicans 
of  Cologne,  where  he  resided,  he  formed  the  design  of 
endeavouring  to  put  into  execution  the  advice  he  had 
given.  During  1509,  his  Dominican  friends  obtained 
from  the  Princess  Kunigunde  a  letter  of  recommenda- 
tion to  the  Emperor  who  was  then  at  Padua.  Maximi- 
lian gave  him  a  mandate  which  enjoined  on  the  Jews  in 
Germany  to  deliver  up  to  Pfefferkorn  such  of  their 
Hebrew  books  as  were  inimical  to  the  Christian  faith  ; 
it  also  constituted  Pfefferkorn  the  sole  judge  as  to  what 
books  should  be  destroyed.  That  person  began  forth- 
with to  exercise  his  newly-acquired  authority  in  a 
tyrannous  manner  at  Frankfort-on-Main.  He  seized 
the  prayer-books  of  the  synagogue  on  the  day  before 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  It  was  an  act  of  malicious 
despotism,  if  indeed  it  was  not  rather  an  attempt  to 

1  Ibid.,  p.  xxiii. 


142        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

coerce  the  wealthy  Jews  of  Frankfort  into  purchasing 
his  forbearance.1 

Whether  it  was  Reuchlin's  connections  with  the 
Dominican  order,  or  his  eminence  as  the  greatest 
German  hebraist,  or,  perhaps,  both  combined,  that 
attracted  the  zealous  convert  from  Judaism,  certain 
it  is  that  Pfefferkorn  presented  himself,  mandate  in 
hand,  before  Reuchlin  for  his  approbation.1  Nothing 
was  further  from  that  scholar's  intention.  He  dis- 
covered legal  flaws  in  the  mandate  and  declined  to  be 
a  party  to  the  execution  of  it.  The  Archbishop  of 
Mainz  took  more  active  measures  against  the  whole 
affair,  for  he  ordered  his  clergy  to  refrain  from  having 
anything  whatever  to  do  with  Pfefferkorn's  crusade. 
Pfefferkorn  exclaimed  against  the  order,  but  the  Arch- 
bishop replied  that  it  would  be  advisable  for  him  to 
obtain  the  co-operation  of  learned  hebraists.  To  carry 
out  this  change  of  plan  a  fresh  mandate  was  sought. 
Maximilian  now  confided  the  entire  business  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Mainz,  only  suggesting  to  the  prelate  to 
consult  on  the  matter  Jacob  von  Hochstraten  (or  van 
Hoogstraten),  the  Inquisitor  hcreticae  pravitatis  for  the 
dioceses  of  Koln,  Mainz  and  Trier,  Reuchlin,  Victor  von 
Karben  (himself  a  convert  from  Judaism),  and  learned 
men  from  the  Universities  of  Mainz,  Koln,  Erfurt,  and 
Heidelberg.  For  some  reason  or  other  this  arrangement 
fell  through.  An  imperial  mandate  was  consequently 
issued  demanding  the  opinions  of  the  above-named 
persons  and  Universities  on  the  course  to  be  adopted 
with  regard  to  the  Hebrew  literature  in  question.  Some 
of  the  Universities,  as  well  as  Hochstraten  and  Victor 
von  Karben,  expressed  their  conviction  that  the  Talmud 
alone  deserved  to  be  burnt,  but  Reuchlin  was  the  only 
one  who  delivered  an  explicit  and  reasoned  statement 

1  Majus,  p.  248,  quotes  the  remark  Melanchthon  many  years  after- 
wards uttered  :  "  The  impostor  knew  that  the  Jews  would  straightway 
redeem  their  books  at  great  expense."  See  also  The  Edinburgh  Repine, 
March,  1831,  vol.  LIII,  Art.  IX,  p.  190. 

E  Majus,  p.  35. 


CONCERNING  HEBREW  LITERATURE    143 

at  full  length.  At  the  time  when  he  composed  his 
Opinion  he  understood  that  he  was  responding  to  the 
command  of  his  Emperor  and  supplying  a  prominent 
and  scholarly  ecclesiastic  with  information  upon  a 
subject  in  which  he  was  competent  to  address  both 
Emperor  and  Archbishop.1  He  had  no  idea  he  was  about 
to  address  the  German  public,  otherwise,  in  all  likeli- 
hood, he  would  have  written  more  guardedly. 

Reuchlin,  in  this  document,  disclaimed  all  real  know- 
ledge of  the  Talmud,  but  considered  there  was  nothing 
in  it  actually  hostile  to  the  Christian  faith.  Certain 
other  books,  such  as  the  Cabbala,  the  commentaries 
on  the  Bible,  the  liturgical,  philosophical,  and  scientific 
works,  he  stated  had  been  approved  of  by  Popes,  or 
sanctioned  by  them  for  use  among  the  Jews,  or  they 
were  of  a  kind  that  might  be  of  service  to  Christian 
scholars.  Of  the  later  rabbinical  compositions,  two  he 
held  to  be  worthy  of  destruction,  the  Toldoth  Jeschu 
and  Nizachon,  because  they  were  of  a  blasphemous 
nature.  Leaving  the  Hebrew  books  aside,  Reuchlin 
discussed,  with  sound  judgment,  the  results  that  would 
follow  from  actually  depriving  the  Jews  of  their  litera- 
ture. Such  a  proceeding,  instead  of  facilitating  their 
conversion,  would  retard  it.  Gentle  means  would  be 
more  likely  to  produce  the  desired  end.  Jews  had  their 
rights  as  fellow-citizens  of  the  German  nation.  The 
literature  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  moreover,  was 
preserved  and  studied,  though  portions  of  it  were 
hostile  to  Christianity,  and  it  would  be  inconsistent 
therefore  to  lay  violent  hands  on  Hebrew  literature  on 
that  ground.  Finally,  he  suggested  that,  as  part  of 
the  gentle  means  of  converting  the  Jews,  Professorships 
of  Hebrew  ought  to  be  appointed  in  the  Universities.* 

Although  this  Opinion  was  in  truth  a  private  docu- 

1  Reuchlin  wrote  to  Erasmus  :  "  A  Caesare  Maximiliano,  Imperatore 
nostro,  jussus  Consilium  de  libris  Judaeorum  concremandis  »cripsi." — 
Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1524c. 

8  Majus,  pp.  261-79. 


144        THE    REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

ment,  it  came  into  the  hands  of  Pfefferkorn.  Filled 
with  anger,  he  forthwith  published  a  book  against 
Reuchlin  which  he  called  his  Handmirror  (Handt- 
spiegel).  In  this  abusive  production,  he  declared  that 
Reuchlin  had  received  bribes  from  Jews,  that  he  knew 
nothing  of  Hebrew,  and  that  he  was  a  secret  enemy  of 
the  Christian  faith.  Here,  indeed,  began  the  first  drawn 
battle  between  the  forces  of  the  New  Learning  and  the 
Old,  between  the  new,  young,  active  spirit  of  inquiry, 
growing  more  vigorous  every  day,  and  the  narrow, 
reactionary,  constraining  spirit  of  medievalism.  Other 
battles  would,  later  on,  be  fought  between  these  irre- 
concilable foes,  on  greater  and  more  startling  issues,  no 
doubt,  issues  which  would  introduce  perplexities  and 
complications  amongst  the  combatants.  No  battle  of 
them  all,  however,  has  more  interest  for  the  mere 
historical  student  on  account  of  the  simplicity  of  the 
matter  involved.  None  more  readily  appeals  to  the 
modern  scholar's  sympathy  with  the  central  figure 
around  whom  this  contentious  tumult  raged.  And  yet, 
it  is  doubtful  if  there  would  have  been  any  serious 
controversy,  any  marshalling  of  hostile  forces,  on  this 
particular  occasion,  if  Reuchlin  had  shown  himself  as 
patient  of  Pfefferkorn's  first  miserable  attempt  at 
slander  as  his  friends  wished.  Instead  of  meeting  the 
attack  with  the  silence  it  deserved,  he  immediately 
replied  in  a  little  treatise  entitled  Speculum  Oculare 
(Augcnspiegel) ,  which  the  dispute  has  immortalized. 
The  accusations  of  falsehood  and  the  vituperations 
which  he  uttered  against  Pfefferkorn  form  an  objection- 
able feature  of  this  pamphlet.  The  modern  reader  is 
not  unnaturally  surprised  that  a  man  of  Reuchlin's 
eminence  should  degrade  himself  by  the  use  of  such 
epithets.  In  his  case,  perhaps,  it  may  be  "  largely 
excusable  by  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  age,"1 
yet  two  of  his  own  friends,  Erasmus  and  Pirckheimer, 

]  Lilly,  p.  2co. 


PFEFFERKORN   AND   REUCHLIN        145 

censured  his  employment  of  abusive  language.1  Reuch- 
lin,  in  the  Augenspiegel,  modifies  on  two  points  what 
he  had  said  in  his  Opinion  ;  he  increases  the  number  of 
Hebrew  books  which  he  considered  worthy  of  <  con- 
demnation, and,  besides  the  tone  of  his  pamphlet,  so 
far  as  it  expresses  publicly  his  attitude  to  the  Jews  and 
their  books,  is  decidedly  apologetic.2  In  both  particu- 
lars the  Augenspiegel  betokens  a  clear  submission  to 
popular  sentiment  upon  the  matter.  But  the  book  was 
altogether  a  mistake  in  tactics  on  Reuchlin's  part.  At 
the  same  time,  he  committed  another  serious  error  ; 
he  wrote  conciliatory  letters  to  two  theologians  of 
Koln,  Arnold  von  Tongern  and  Konrad  Kollin,  admit- 
ting that  he  was  no  theologian  and  pleading  that  he 
had  been  faithful  to  the  Dominicans  as  their  Proctor 
for  a  considerable  number  of  years.  He  issued  this 
claim  to  the  gratitude  of  the  Dominicans,  because  it 
was  the  members  of  that  order  in  Koln  who  were 
abetting  Pfefferkorn.3  In  spite  of,  perhaps  because  of, 
this  submissive  attitude  of  Reuchlin,  the  theological 
faculty  of  Koln  University  demanded  the  withdrawal 
of  the  A  ugenspicgel  and  a  public  declaration  of  such  a 
kind  as  would  contain  a  definite  statement  of  hostility 
towards  the  Jews  and  their  Talmud.  Perceiving  that 
his  conciliatory  efforts  had  been  misunderstood,  Reuch- 
lin, instead  of  complying  with  this  demand,  published 
in    March,    15 12,    a    German   pamphlet,    "  Ain   clare 

1  Ep.  of  Erasmus  to  Reuchlin,  August,  1 5 14,  from  Basle — Geiger, 
Reuchlins  Brieftorchsel,  pp.  224-5  ( Illustrium  Virorum  Epistolae, 
edition  of  1 5 1 9, 1 1  lb,  4a),  where  it  is  wrongly  dated  from  Louvain. 

1  Reuchlin  calls  it  an  apology  in  an  ep.  to  Erasmus  (Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
15240),  but  it  is  apologetic  even  beyond  his  own  meaning.  The  ep.  of 
Erasmus  referred  to  in  the  previous  note  is  a  reply  to  this  one  of  Reuch- 
lin's. Erasmus  therein  advises  Reuchlin  to  send  the  libellus  (which 
Geiger,  loc.  cit.,  thinks  is  the  Dcjensio  contra  Cal.  Colonienses)  to  Bishop 
Fisher  and  Dean  Colet. 

8  The  ep.  to  Tongern  and  a  summary  of  that  to  Kollin  are  given  in 
Majus,  pp.  321-5,  and  both  in  full  in  Reuchlins  Brieftvechsel,  pp.  137-44. 
Reuchlin's  corresp.  with  the  Theol.  Fac.  of  Kiiln  and  Konrad  Kollin  is 
to  be  found  in  Bulaeus,  VI,  52-8. 

L 


i4<->        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

Verstentnus  in  tiitsch,"  in  which  he  explained  his 
position  to  his  German  countrymen. 

A  new  and  greater  impetus  to  the  growth  of  the 
dispute  was  thus  imparted.  Pfefferkorn  produced 
another  slanderous  brochure  against  Reuchlin,  and 
Arnold  von  Tongern  issued  a  polemic  against  him. 
These  only  increased  his  anger.  He  replied  with  a 
Defence  against  the  Calumniators  of  Koln.  His  friends 
were  grieved  with  this  fresh  outburst  of  impatience, 
and  his  enemies  obtained  from  the  Emperor  a  mandate 
for  its  suppression.  Matters  were  now  ripe  for  a  further 
move.  The  "  Inquisitor  hereticae  pravitatis,"  Jacob 
von  Hochstraten,  summoned  Reuchlin  to  appear  before 
him  at  Mainz  on  13th  September,  1513.  Reuchlin, 
through  a  proctor,  appealed  to  Rome.  Pope  Leo  left 
the  matter  to  the  decision  of  the  Bishops  of  Worms  and 
Speyer,  the  former  of  whom  did  not  act,  and  the  latter 
delegated  it  to  two  of  his  subordinates,  his  Dean  and 
a  jurist.  In  accordance  with  their  exoneration  of 
Reuchlin,  at  the  end  of  March,  15 14,  the  Bishop  of 
Speyer  delivered  a  judgment  favourable  to  the  great 
scholar.1  Hochstraten  thereupon  appealed  to  the 
Holy  See. 

In  consequence  of  the  efforts  put  forth  by  the  com- 
batants, a  still  wider  publicity  had  been  given  to  the 
quarrel.  Already  the  doctors  of  Koln  had  sought  and 
obtained  from  the  Universities  of  Mainz,  Erfurt,  and 
Louvain  a  condemnation  of  the  Augenspiegel ;  and 
they  had  submitted  the  question  to  the  Sorbonne  in 
order  to  gain,  if  possible,  the  concurrence  of  a  Theological 
Faculty  of  such  commanding  pre-eminence  as  that  of 
the  University  of  P  ^ris.  Reuchlin  himself  wrote  on  the 
subject  to  Jacques  Lefevre  d' Staples,  because  he  felt 
confident  that  he  ••vould  receive  the  sympathy  of  that 
good  man.  He  therefore  ^ut  hi'  cause  into  his  hands, 
claiming  Lefevre's  powerful  interest  on  his  behalf  when 
the  business  should  come  before  the  doctors  of  the 

1  Majus,  pp.  404-9.    See  Fra$.  0p.>  III,  15241. 


UNIVERSITIES  AGAINST  REUCHLIN      147 

Sorbonne  for  consideration,  and  hoping  that  "  the 
great  Theological  School  will  quickly  send  at  least  a 
word  of  brotherly  comfort  to  him  as  a  fellow-student 
and  a  member  of  the  same  University  of  Paris."1  This 
letter  was  despatched  on  31st  August,  1513.  Other 
epistles  from  eminent  personages  followed  it,  urging  a 
like  request.*  As  for  Lefevre,  he  did  what  he  could. 
He  was  not  himself  a  doctor  of  the  Sorbonne,  but  he 
enlisted  the  services  of  friends  who  were,  and  he  took 
care  to  have  both  the  letter  which  Reuchlin  had 
written  to  him  and  the  other  documents  which  had 
accompanied  it  laid  before  the  various  assemblies  of 
theologians.  From  the  outset  of  the  process  a  few 
very  prominent  doctors  stoutly  defended  Reuchlin  : 
the  Chancellor  of  the  University,  Godefroi  Boussard  ; 
the  Penitentiary  and  Royal  Confessor,  Guillaume 
Petit;*  Guillaume  Chastel  and  Martial  Mazurier,  two 
devoted  friends  of  Lefevre.  And  Reuchlin  had,  more- 
over, friends  in  Paris  who  were  busily  promoting  his 
cause.  One  of  these,  Guillaume  Cop,  the  physician  of 
King  Louis,  on  being  asked  by  his  royal  patron  if  he 
knew  this  man  Reuchlin,  replied  that  he  had  not  seen 
him  for  about  forty  years,  but  that  he  knew  through 
his  teacher,  who  had  once  been  a  pupil  of  Reuchlin's, 
that  he  was  a  profoundly  learned  man,  one  who  had 
devoted  himself  to  honourable  studies,  as  his 
numerous  erudite  works  proved.  Cop  had  no  sooner 
given  this  answer  to  the  King  than  a  bishop 
there     present      (possibly     the     Bishop     of     Paris, 

1  Bulacus,  VI,  62  (also  Herminjard,  I,  9-15)  :  "  Sane*  plurimum  de  te 
mihi  spei  est,  cum  laudatissimo  Theologorum  Collegio  tarn  diligentcr 
mco  nomine  agas,  ut  aliquam  saltern  cor.solationem  fraternam  mihi  suo 
confratri  et  eju9dem  Universitatis  Parisiensis  membro,  celeriter  mittant." 
Geiger,  Brirftvfchsrl,  p.  198,  gives  only  a  summary  of  this  epistle. 

*  Geiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  223.  For  the  ep.  of  Quonus  to  Lefevre,  24th  July 
(15 14),  see  App.  III.  Reuchlin  himself,  and  Duke  Ulrich  on  his  behalf, 
wrote  (June,  1514)  to  the  Sorbonne — Bulaeus,  VI,  63-5. 

•  Majus,  p.  470,  called  thia  influential  ecclesiastic  an  opponent  of 
Reuchlin.    Although  Reuchlin  hims«  If  thought  so  too.  it  was  a  mistake. 


148        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

fitienne  de  Poncher)  exclaimed :  "  You  also  are  a 
Judaiser."1 

His  efforts  were  in  vain.  After  nearly  a  year's  dis- 
cussion of  the  case  the  force  of  numbers  in  the  Faculty 
told,  and,  from  fear  of  a  papal  brief,  a  decision  was 
hastily  arrived  at,  on  2nd  August,  1514,  supporting  the 
theologians  of  Koln.  When  he  was  conveying  this  news 
to  Reuchlin,  Lefevre  administered  to  him  one  piece  of 
comfort.  He  told  him  that  his  Parisian  friends  were 
solacing  themselves  with  the  reflection  that,  after  all, 
the  decision  of  the  Sorbonne  was  only  an  academic 
opinion,  and  probably  would  not  do  him  any  serious 
harm.  Nevertheless,  he  advised  Reuchlin  to  do  all  in 
his  power  to  render  his  cause  successful  at  Rome,  for 
"  if  thou  dost  conquer,  we  conquer  with  thee."2 

By  this  time  the  controversy  had  attained  a  Euro- 
pean reputation  ;  in  fact,  it  formed  the  prominent 
topic  in  the  literary  correspondence  of  the  period.  All 
the  scholars  in  Christendom  sympathized  warmly  with 
Reuchlin.3  He  was  fighting  their  battle,  and  they  knew 
it ;  *  if  he  were  to  suffer  defeat,  freedom  of  thought 
would  be  at  an  end,  and  all  the  progress  in  knowledge 

1  Ep.  of  Cop  to  Reuchlin,  25th  August,  15 14 — Bulaeus,  VI,  65-6; 
Majus,  p.  461  ;  Geiger,  Briefwechsel,  p.  223  ;   Herminjard,  I,  16. 

2  Autograph  letter  of  Lefevre  to  Reuchlin,  30th  August,  15 14,  pre- 
served in  the  Royal  Library,  Berlin  ;  given  by  Herminjard,  I,  15-18,  and 
summarized  by  Geiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  226. 

3  See  the  ep.  of  Buschius  in  Bulaeus,  VI,  68,  and  epp.  of  Erasmus  to 
Reuchlin,  1st  March,  1 515,  and  29th  September,  15 16 — Geiger,  Brief- 
wechsel, pp.  1 19-21,  and  258-60  {Illust.  Vir.  Epp.,  IIIa-b  and  /.) ; 
Allen,  II,  49  and  350-1. 

*  Sir  William  Hamilton  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  of  March,  1831,  p. 
192.  Cp.  also  the  ep.  of  Luther  to  Reuchlin,  14th  December,  1518 — De 
Wette  (Dr.  Wilhelm  Martin  Leberecht),  Dr.  Martin  Luthcrs  Briefe,  etc., 
Berlin,  1825,  erster  theil,  p.  196  :  "  Dominus  tecum,  Vir  fortissime. 
Gratulor  misericordiae  Dei,  quae  in  te  est,  Vir  et  eruditissime  et  humanis- 
sime,  qua  tandem  praevaluisti  obstruere  os  loquentium  iniqua.  Fuisti 
tu  sane  organum  consilii  divini,  sicut  tibi  ipsi  incognitum,  ita  omnibus 
purae  theologiae  studiosis  expectatissimum  :  adeo  longe  alia  fiebant  a 
Deo.  e.  alia  videbantur  geri  per  vo?.'* 


THE   PAPAL  VERDICT    (1516)  149 

that  had  been  gained  in  recent  years  would  be  swept 
away,  for  a  triumph  of  the  Dominicans  in  Germany 
would  entail  grave  consequences  for  the  cause  of 
learning  throughout  the  whole  Christian  world.  There 
was  ample  reason,  therefore,  for  the  belief  entertained 
by  the  Parisian  savants,  Bude,  Lefevre  and  the  rest, 
and  men  in  England  like  Sir  Thomas  More,  Bishop 
Fisher,  Dean  Colet,  Grocyn  and  Tunstall,  besides  the 
great  German  scholars,  that  the  controversy  touched 
themselves.1  Erasmus,  moreover,  and  probably  others 
also,  wrote  to  influential  persons  at  Rome  in  aid  of 
Reuchlin's  cause.2  Fisher  and  Colet  tried  to  win  sup- 
port for  him  at  the  English  Court  ;  and  e\ .  n  the  Em- 
peror Maximilian,  although  no  patron  of  Reuchlin, 
addressed  the  Pope  in  his  favour.3 

When  the  decision  of  the  Papal  Commissioners 
appeared  (July,  15 16),  it  was  found  to  be  favourable  to 
Reuchlin.  Sylvester  Prierias,  the  Master  of  the  Sacred 
Palace,  however,  was  hostile  to  the  great  hebraist ; 
and  his  efforts,  assisted  by  the  gifts  distributed  by 
Hochstraten,  succeeded  in  hindering  the  pronounce- 
ment of  a  papal  sentence  which  would  be  in  accord  with 
the  findings  of  the  Commission.  Leo,  consequently, 
brought  the  affair  to  an  indecisive  conclusion  by  a 
mandate  Dc  Supcrsedendo,  by  which  neither  side 
gained  a  verdict. 

Whilst  his  cause  lay  sub  judice  at  Rome,  Reuchlin 
had  displayed  an  admirable  spirit  of  patience  and  self- 
control.*    But,  indeed,  by  this  time,  the  contest  itself 

1  Majus,  pp.  52,  448-62;  More  to  Dorpius — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1915D; 
Erasmus  to  Reuchlin,  27th  August,  1516,  and  29th  September,  1 5 1 6 — 
Must.  J'ir.  Epp.;  Erasmus  to  Pirckheimer,  2nd  November,  15 17 — 
Eras.    Op.,  ITT,  268E  ;    Pirckheimer's  reply— ibid.,  219B,  d. 

2  Cardinal  Grimani — Ibid.,  144;  Cardl.  Riario — ibid.,  146E  et  seq.  ; 
Pope  Leo — ibid.,  154c.  Majus,  p.  47,  has  drawn  up  an  imposing  list 
of  the  powerful  persons  and  corporations  who  petitioned  the  Curia  on 
Reuchlin's  behalf. 

3  Majus,  pp.  462-4  ;  Stokes,  p.  xlii. 
'  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1559A,  b. 


150        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

had  undergone  a  radical  change  :  the  battle-ground  had 
not  only  widened  but  shifted.  How  this  took  place  it 
is  a  matter  of  some  importance  to  explain. 

Reuchlin,  when  the  severity  of  the  conflict  in  which 
he  was  engaged  became  known,  had  received  encourag- 
ing letters  from  scholars  and  patrons  of  learning  in 
England,  France,  and  Italy,  as  well  as  in  Germany.  He 
considered  that  these,  if  published,  would  strengthen 
his  position.  Accordingly,  he  had  issued  a  collection 
of  them  (March,  15 14)  with  the  title,  Clarorum  Virorum 
Epistolae  latinae,  graecae  &  hebraicae  varijs  temporibus 
missae  ad  Joannem  Reuchlin  Phorcensem  LL.  doctor  em. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  following  year  a  book  modelled 
on  the  plan  of  Reuchlin 's  appeared  entitled  :  Epistolae 
Obscurorum  Virorum  ad  venerabilem  virum  Magistrum 
Ortuinum  Gratium  Daventriensem  Coloniae  Agrippinae 
bonas  literas  docentem  :  varijs  &  locis  &  temporibus 
missae  :  ac  demum  in  volumcn  coactae.  These  letters 
purported  to  be  written  by  certain  theologians  and 
scholars  of  no  remarkable  celebrity  on  the  opposite  side, 
and  were  ostensibly  addressed  to  Ortuinus  Gratius 
(Ortwin  von  Graes),  a  man  "  in  scholarship  respectable, 
but  damned  to  everlasting  fame  as  the  butt  of  the 
keenest  arrows  ever  launched  by  relentless  wit  against 
arrogant  bigotry."1  Why  Ortuinus  Gratius  should 
have  been  selected  for  this  baneful  honour,  rather 
than  Hochstraten  or  Pfefferkorn  or  Tongern,  is  a 
question  which  has  furnished  occasion  for  many  sur- 
mises. True,  he  had  been  from  the  start  concerned  in 
the  dispute.  The  inference  that  he  was,  in  a  very  real 
sense,  Pfefferkorn,  rested  on  a  very  good  foundation,* 
and,  in  a  book  published  a  few  months  before  the 
Letters  of  the  Obscure  Men,  he  had  classed  himself 
amongst  the  most  vindictive  of  Reuchlin's  opponents. 
But  these  considerations  alone  do  not  reveal  sufficient 

1  Stokes,  p.  xx. 

'  Ep.  of  Joh.  Holckot,  Epp.  Obs.  fir.,  II,  No.  21  (Teubner's  edition 
of  1858.  p.  274.). 


EPISTOLAE  OBSCURORUM    VIRORUM    151 

grounds  for  his  selection.  A  much  more  adequate 
reason  (along  with  the  many  minor  ones)  is  to  be  found 
in  the  detestation  entertained  for  him  by  the  humanists 
of  Germany.  He  had  been  the  schoolfellow  at  Deventer 
of  some  of  these,  had  been  himself  a  humanist,  but  had 
passed  into  the  service  of  the  forces  of  Obscurantism 
(imitating  Aleander),  and  thus  had  incurred  the  obloquy 
of  an  apostate. 

The  fact  that  Ortwin  abased  himself  to  become  the 
kept  humanist  of  the  Cologne  theologians  suffices  to 
explain  all.  The  light  of  the  new  day  had  shone  upon 
his  face  as  upon  the  other  "  Poets,"  and  yet — perhaps 
"  for  a  handful  of  silver  " — he  had  prostituted  his 
scholarship  in  the  defence  of  the  barbarians  !' 

So  cleverly  drawn  were  the  manners  and  ways  of  the 
inferior  ecclesiastics  and  theologians  in  these  Letters 
that  many  of  themselves  bought,  read,  and  enjoyed  the 
book,  fancying  all  the  time  that  it  was  truly  the  work 
of  men  of  their  own  class.  The  ab7er  scholars  never  had 
any  doubt  as  to  its  t^ue  character.8  The  book,  in  fact, 
was  a  pasquinade  ;  and  that  it  should  nave  led  some  of 
the  very  men  who  were  the  subjects  c  its  ridicule  into 
supposing  it  anything  else  is  a  tnoute  to  the  genius 
of  its  authors  and  to  the  unequivocal  truthfulness  of 
the  satire.  Of  it,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  this 
book  is  one  of  the  very  few  satirical  compositions  which 
educated  men  in  every  age  will  enjoy.8  Stupid  persons 
are  no  bygone  product  ;  conceited  fools,  who  imagine 
themselves    profound    when    they    are    only    obtuse, 

1  Stokes,  p.  xlviii.  Hamilton,  Edinburgh  Rcvino,  p.  205,  declared 
that  the  personal  hatred  of  Hermann  von  dem  Busche,  one  of  the  joint 
authors  of  the  Epp.  Obs.  Fir.,  was  an  important,  if  not  the  chief,  ground 
of  the  selection  of  Ortuinus. 

*  Ep.  of  More  to  Erasmus,  q  i?t  October,  1 5 16 — Eras.  Op.,  TIT, 
1575A,  B. 

*  A  detailed  account  of  the  contents  of  the  Epistolae  Obscurorum 
Virorum  is  not  given  here,  because  these  particulars  do  not  enter  into 

the  scope  of  the  present  treatise.  Mr.  Francis  Griffin  Stoke?  has  recently 
edited  the  Epistolae,  with  Translation  and  Notes,  and  to  this  admirable 
publication  we  refer  those  who  desire  more  complete  {"formation. 


152        THE   REUCHLIX   CONTROVERSY 

belong  to  other  epochs  than  the  early  sixteenth  century  ; 
and  a  combination  of  the  forces  of  self-interest  and 
prejudice,  ignorance  and  malevolence,  may  be  con- 
fidently expected  at  all  times  when  some  fresh  advance- 
ment of  human  knowledge  is  on  foot.  A  translation 
of  the  Letters  of  the  Obscure  Men  affords  the  general 
public  the  opportunity  of  entering  into  the  amusement 
and  of  perceiving,  beneath  the  sallies  of  keen  wit, 
the  tremendous  issues  for  which  the  real  authors  were 
contending.  The  satire,  however,  in  its  entire  force 
can  only  be  estimated  by  a  perusal  of  the  original 
Latin,  because  this  mimicked,  with  amusing  fidelity, 
the  vile  Latinity  in  daily  use  by  the  class  of  the  supposed 
writers  of  the  Letters,  and,  accordingly,  furnished  to 
the  humanists  of  that  time  no  small  part  of  the  merri- 
ment. Many  of  the  Letters,  no  doubt,  contain  a  degree 
of  coarseness  little  consonant  with  modern  ideas.  Some 
also  must  be  regarded  as  rather  brutal  attacks  upon  one 
or  two  ecclesiastics  of  whose  characters  what  is  known 
now  commands  our  respect  and  honour.1  Pfefferkorn's 
wife  is  dragged  into  the  pasquinade  and  her  reputation 
befouled2 — a  practice  common  enough  amongst  the 
Italian  humanists  of  the  previous  century  in  their 
literary  quarrels,  but  not  at  all  justifiable,  on  that 
account,  amongst  the  authors  of  the  Epistolae  Obscur- 
orum  Virorum,  who  had  very  much  nobler  aims  in  view 
than  the  rivalries  of  personal  ambition  or  the  pursuit 
of  literary  pre-eminence.  But  it  is  hard,  at  this  time 
of  day,  and  under  quite  other  canons  of  good  taste, 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  authors  of  sixteenth  century 
lampoons.  Into  all  satire,  one  has  reason  to  suppose, 
there  must  almost  of  necessity  enter  a  large  degree  of 
injustice  towards  a  few  of  those  who  have  the  misfortune 
to  be  its  butts.  Besides,  the  Letters  of  the  Obscure  Men 
require  to  be  judged  by  their  general  bearing  towards 
a  certain  class  of  persons  of  the  period  rather  than  by 

1  I  pp.  Obs.   Vir.,  I,  Nos.  9,  21,  etc. 

1  Ibid.,  I,  No.  13  (Teubner's  edit.,  p.  37). 


AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  EPISTOLAE-    153 

the  way  they  affected  this  individual  or  that.  The 
charge  of  coarseness,  if  it  cannot  be  refuted  (that  is 
impossible),  may  at  least  find  an  explanation  in  the 
standard  of  the  times  and  an  excuse  in  a  comparison 
instituted  between  them,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
works  of  Rabelais  on  the  other — a  comparison  alto- 
gether favourable  to  the  former. 

Indeed,  as  estimable  an  authority  on  this  subject  as 
the  late  Bishop  Creighton  contended  that  the  writers 
of  the  book  applied  "  the  caustic  of  their  contempt  with 
gentleness  and  moderation,"  and,  in  proof  of  this  state- 
ment, pointed  to  the  characters  of  the  Obscure  as  they 
are  portrayed  in  the  letters  : — 

The  Obscure  Men  are  not  wicked  or  vicious  :  they 
have  their  frailties,  and  they  fall  before  their  tempta- 
tions ;  but  they  do  not  rejoice  in  wrong-doing,  and 
they  feel  remorse  for  their  sins.1 

Moreover,  the  main  purpose  of  the  book,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  of  paramount  importance,  makes  it  possible  to 
overlook  the  blemishes  observable  in  its  contents, 
though  it  cannot  justify  them.  That  purpose  is  always 
within  sight  ;  there  is  hardly  an  epistle  which  has  not 
some  direct  or  indirect  allusion  to  the  Reuchlin  dispute. 
Each  of  them  is,  as  it  were,  a  shot  fired  in  that  battle. 
Yet  the  battle,  wherein  these  were  the  missiles,  had 
widened  beyond  the  limits  of  the  original  strife  between 
a  single  scholar  such  as  Reuchlin  and  his  censors  at 
Koln.  A  new  body  of  combatants  had  entered  into  it, 
some  of  whom  would  not  lay  aside  their  weapons  when 
Reuchlin 's  cause  should  have  ended,  but  would  con- 
tinue fighting  until  a  much  greater  issue  should  have 
been  decided. 

Konrad  Muth,  better  known  as  Mutianus  Rufus,  held 
a  canonry  at  Gotha.2  He  was  one  who  had  imbibed 
somewhat   of  the   Neo-Platonic  spirit   in  his   Italian 

1  Hist,  of  the  Papacy,  VI,  54,  55. 

1  Strauss  (Dr.  D.  F.),  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  Eng.  (abridged)  trans,  by 
Mrs.  Sturgc,  London,  1 874,  pp.  22-8. 


154        THE   REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY 

travels,  and  was,  therefore,  dissatisfied  with  the  con- 
temporary religious  forms  and  beliefs.  His  scholarship 
was  profound,  his  personality  attractive,  and  his 
intellectual  powers  of  so  pre-eminent  an  order  that  the 
circle  of  friends  that  gathered  around  him  from  Gotha 
and  the  neighbouring  University  of  Erfurt  delighted  to 
call  their  company  the  "  Mutianic  circle."  The  group 
was  not  remarkable  for  the  number  of  its  members  but 
their  brilliant  intellects  gave  them  a  powerful  ascend- 
ancy over  the  minds  of  the  German  people  at  that  period. 
Not  least  among  these  notable  persons  were  Crotus 
Rubeanus  (John  Jager  of  Dornheim),  Ulrich  von 
Hutten,  Hermann  von  dem  Busche  Eoban  Hesse,  and 
Justus  Menius.  When  the  company  met,  as  it  fre- 
quently did,  at  the  house  of  Mutianus  at  Gotha,  the 
conversation  turned  oftentimes  upon  the  religion  of  the 
day.  Crotus,  on  such  occasions,  used  to  deliver  sar- 
castic comments  on  the  teaching  and  personal  qualities 
of  the  clergy  and  the  credulity  of  the  people,  to  the 
enjoyment  of  his  hearers.  For  not  one  of  them  all  was 
orthodox  in  his  Christianity.  This  circumstance  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at ;  it  was  one  of  the  consequences  of 
the  prevalent  degeneracy  of  religion.  Mutianus  and 
his  friends  were  only  too  liable  to  seek  in  a  philosophized, 
almost  paganized,  Christianity  a  purer  faith  than  that 
offered  by  the  venal  relic-mongers,  the  irreligious 
massing-priests,1  and  the  unscrupulous  ambitious 
churchmen,  of  their  times.  "  I  do  not  revere  the  coat 
or  the  beard  of  Christ ;  I  revere  the  living  God,  Who 
wears  neither  coat  nor  beard,"  said  Mutianus.  Few 
pious  Christians  would  feel  inclined  to  quarrel  with  such 
an  expression  of  faith.  But  there  are  other  words  of  his 
far  less  likely  to  meet  with  approval,  as,  for  instance  : — 

There  is  but  one  God  and  one  Goddess,  but  there 
are  many  forms  and  many  names  :  Jupiter,  Sol, 
Apollo,    Moses,    Christ,     Luna,    Ceres,     Proserpina, 

1  Kostlin  (Dr.  Julius),  Martin  Luther,  scin  Leben  und  seine  Schriften, 
Elberfeld,  1883,  T.  105,  relates  Luther's  experiences  at  Rome. 


GERMAN  HUMANISTS  AND  RELIGION     155 

Tellus,  Mary.  But  do  not  spread  it  abroads  we  must 
keep  silence  on  these  Eleusinian  mysteries.  In 
religious  matters  we  must  employ  fables  and  enigmas 
as  a  veil.  Thou  who  hast  the  grace  of  Jupiter, 
the  best  and  greatest  God,  should  in  secret  despise  the 
little  gods.  When  I  say  Jupiter,  I  mean  Christ  and 
the  true  God.  But  enough  of  these  things,  which 
are  too  high  for  us.1 

Yet,  with  all  their  strange  views,  the  little  humanistic 
sodality  at  Gotha  stood  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
intellect,  and,  more  than  this,  for  a  re-constitution  of 
Christianity  in  its  creeds,  its  ceremonies,  and  its  place 
in  human  life,  by  bringing  the  whole  subject  of  religion 
before  the  bar  of  human  reason.  What  has  been  said 
in  praise  of  the  best  of  the  Italian  humanists  might  be 
just  as  truly  said  of  the  Mutianic  circle  and  the  German 
humanists  generally : — 

There  is  nothing  great  and  noble  in  human  nature 
that  might  not,  we  fancy,  have  grown  and  thriven 
under  their  direction,  if  the  circumstances  of  Italy  had 
been  more  favourable  to  high  aspirations.  As  it  was, 
the  light  was  early  quenched  and  clouded  by  the  base 
vapours  of  a  sensual,  enslaved,  and  priest-corrupted 
society.  The  vital  force  of  the  Revival  passed  into 
the  Reformation ;  the  humanists,  degraded  and 
demoralized,  were  superseded.  Still  it  was  they  who 
created  the  new  atmosphere  of  culture,  wherein  what- 
ever is  luminous  in  art,  literature,  science,  criticism, 
and  religion  has  since  flourished.  Though  we  may 
perceive  that  they  obeyed  a  false  authority — that  of 
the  classics,  and  worshipped  a  false  idol — style,  yet 
modern  liberty  must  render  them  the  meed  of  thanks 
for  this.1 

After  a  temporary  dispersion,  the  Gotha- Erfurt  group 
gathered  together  again  in  15 12,  and  many  were  the 
animated  discussions  which  they  held  over  the  Reuchlin- 
Pfefferkorn  dispute  at  its  commencement.     Cautious 

1  Strauss,  p.  26. 

'  Symonds,  Revival  of  Learning  in  Italy,  pp.  J3$-& 


156        THE   REUCHLIN   CONTROVERSY 

Mutianus,  who,  whatever  his  opinions  on  the  Church 
or  its  doctrines  might  be,  never  published  any  works, 
wrote  early  in  the  controversy  to  Reuchlin  to  keep  his 
opinions  to  himself1: — 

We  must  not  babble  of  secrets,  nor  disturb  the 
opinions  of  the  masses,  without  which  the  Emperor 
would  not  be  able  long  to  retain  the  Empire,  nor  the 
Pope  the  Church,  nor  we  our  property,  and  all  things 
would  lapse  into  confusion.  Therefore,  most  learned 
Capnion,  leave  us  the  faith  of  our  fathers,  and  do  not 
so  favour  the  Jews  as  to  injure  the  Christians. 

Yet,  when  the  strife  increased,  Mutianus  did  all  he 
could,  by  writing  and  speaking,  in  favour  of  Reuchlin. 
Crotus,  indeed,  could  say  to  Reuchlin,  in  1514,  in  the 
name  of  the  company2: — 

You  have  on  your  side  the  whole  Mutianic  order ; 
it  comprises  philosophers,  poets,  orators,  and  theo- 
logians, all  ready  to  fight  for  you.  You  have  only 
to  give  the  word  of  command. 

But  Crotus  and  his  friends  were  already  forming  into 
line  of  battle  without  receiving  any  word  of  command 
from  Reuchlin.  Upon  their  many  private  conversations 
about  him,  the  persecuted  scholar,  and  his  opponents, 
the  whole  crowd  of  "  cowl-wearing  monsters,"  there 
ensued  several  compositions  intended  originally  for  the 
entertainment  of  their  own  fraternity.  One  wrote  a 
"  Triumph  of  Capnio,"  a  serious  enough  pamphlet, 
deriding  the  monkish  persecutors  and  lauding  the 
virtues  and  abilities  of  Reuchlin.3  Probably,  many 
similai  writings  issued  from  the  pens  of  the  Reuch- 
linisis  at  Erfurt  and  Gotha.  Crotus  contributed  pro- 
ductions of  his  singular  genius,  such  as  would  prove 
hurtful  to  the  enemies  of  Reuchlin,  amusing  to  his 

1  Strauss,  p.  III. 

J  hid.,  p.  133. 
"fbia.,  p.  122;   Stokes,  p.  lxvi.     Sec  also  Epp.   Obs.   Vir.,  I,  No.  25 
(in  Teubner's  edit.,  p.  73.) 


CROTUS   RUBEANUS  157 

friends,  and  successful  as  weapons  of  warfare.  At 
first,  his  compositions  circulated  in  manuscripf  amongst 
the  "  Mutianic  host."  Later,  when  they  had  increased 
in  number,  it  was  decided  to  publish  them.  This  would 
appear  to  have  been  the  origin  of  the  Letters  of  the 
Obscure  Men.  That  Crotus  was  the  author  of  the  First 
Part,  published  in  1515,  as  mentioned  above,  is  now 
as  certain  as  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  matter  can 
decide.1  Possibly  he  received  hints  from  friends  ; 
perhaps  even  some  of  the  Letters  are  to  be  regarded 
as  the  works  of  several  collaborators.  But  the  con- 
ception, the  plan,  of  the  book  originated  with  him. 
When  this  First  Part  had  appeared  and  obtained  im- 
mediate success  and  fame,  Pfefferkorn  thought  it  needful 
to  put  forth  a  Defence,  wherein  he  characterized  the 
Letters  as  the  work  of  men  who  were  worse  than 
Saracens.  Obviously,  more  "  letters  "  would  issue  as  a 
reply  to  such  a  "  defence."  The  one  member  of  "he 
Mutianic  group  of  friends  who  possessed  the  requisite 
mental  capabilities  for  following  up  the  lead  given  by 
Crotus  was  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  and  he,  at  the  tir  e,  \  as 
studying  at  Bologna.  The  scheme  of  the  Letters 
appealed  to  him  irresistibly.  He  felt  himseii'  im- 
pelled to  publish  an  Appendix  to  Part  I,  aid  aiso 
a  Second  Part.2  In  both  of  these  the  satire  is  well 
maintained,  but,  whilst  the  humour  of  the  First  Part 
(Crotus's  work)  is  slightly  veiled,  though  none  the  less 
pungent  on  that  account,  the  humour  of  the  Second 
Part  is  more  frank,  boisterous,  and  pugnacious.8 

The  entire  work  (for  the  so-called  Third  Part  hardly 
requires  to  be  mentioned,  since  it  did  not  appear  until 
many  years  afterwards)  thus  is  to  be  reckoned  as  the 

1  Majus,  pp.  424-5,  notices  that  Paulus  Jovius  believed  Reuchlin 
himself  was  the  author,  but  that  others  thought  Erasmus  or  Hutten  was. 
Herr  Walther  Brecht,  in  1904,  decided  the  authorship  as  mentioned  in 
the  text  above — Stokes,  pp.  lvii  and  lxvi. 

2  The  Appendix  appeared  in  the  autumn  of  1 5 16,  the  Second  Part 
early  in  1517. 

8  Stokes,  p.  lxvii. 


158        THE  REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY 

composition  of  two  men,  Crotus  and  Hutten.  If  a 
third  person  had  any  hand  in  it  that  must  have  been 
Hermann  von  dem  Busche.1 

Although  they  joined  heartily  in  the  laughter, 
neither  Reuchlin  nor  Erasmus  liked  the  book  ;  the 
former,  because  he  felt  sure  it  would  only  embitter  his 
enemies  still  further  against  him  and  affect  his  cause 
adversely ;  *  the  latter,  because  he  knew  that  the  hatred 
of  the  monks  against  all  humanists  would  be  thereby 
increased  and  their  hostility  become  violent  and 
dangerous.1 

Much  as  Pope  Leo  favoured  the  humanistic  move- 
ment, the  Letters  of  the  Obscure  Men  proved  too  serious 
a  weapon  against  the  whole  ecclesiastical  organization 
to  be  overlooked.  Thereupon,  in  the  spring  of  1517, 
he  denounced  them,  and,  in  his  Bull,  anathematized  the 
authors  as  "  sons  of  iniquity  "  impelled  to  their  pro- 
duction by  "  wicked,  damnable,  and  temerarious 
loquacity."4 

The  weapon  once  launched  could  never  be  recalled, 
and  all  the  Papal  Bulls  ever  issued  would  have  been 
ineffectual  to  counteract  the  permanent  results  of  that 
one  work.  Satire  is  the  one  type  of  assault  against 
which  there  is  no  defence.  It  is  always  hurtful,  it  always 
leaves  a  rankling  wound,  and  sometimes  it  is  cowardly. 
But  it  is  robbed  of  at  least  half  its  power  to  hurt  if  it 
be  untrue.  In  this  special  case,  however,  its  accuracy 
in  depicting  the  characteristics  of  the  majority  of  the 
lower  clergy  and  monks  of  the  time  was  so  complete 
that  the  satire  gained  full  force  from  its  entire  truthful- 
ness. If  anyone,  in  these  modern  days,  feels  inclined  to 
draw  attention  to  the  cowardliness  of  the  attack  made 

1  The  Edinburgh  Review,  March,  1831,  pp.  203-6,  makes  this  certain. 

1  Strauss,  p.  138. 

•See  ep.  of  Wolfgang  Angst  to  Erasmus,  19th  October,  151 5,  Eras. 
Op.,  Ill,  1777B,  c.  Erasmus,  writing  to  Caesarius  and  Count  Nuena? 
(ibid.,  1 62  J  and  1626)  tried  to  explain  away  the  mooted  inference  that  the 
Epp.  Obs.   Fir.  were  the  natural  sequel  to  his  own  Encomium  Moriat. 

*  Stokes,  p.  lv  ;  Lilly,  p.  31  2, 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  EPISTOLAE      159 

in  the  Letters,  let  him  first  observe  that  cowardliness  is 
a  charge  which  can  be  much  more  truly  laid  against 
those  who,  brave  by  reason  of  their  numbers,  and 
arrogant  by  reason  of  the  powers  conferred  upon  them 
by  terror,  chose  to  attack  an  inoffensive  mystic  in  his 
study,  and  panted  for  the  opportunity  of  burning  him, 
as  they  had  but  lately  served  Hermann  van  Ryswick 
at  the  Hague.1  In  Germany,  the  Letters  of  the  Obscure 
Men  had  a  political  influence.  The  merriment  of  the 
German  people  over  the  ridicule  poured  upon  the  hated 
ecclesiastics  changed  into  a  spirit  of  active  hostility, 
which  many  causes  of  discontent  conspired  to  strengthen. 
From  the  very  first,  therefore,  Luther  was  certain  of  the 
popular  support  when  the  time  came  for  him  to  revolt 
against  ecclesiastical  authority.8  Reuchlin,  on  the 
contrary,  never  had  any  desire  to  revolt,  and  the 
popularity  which  guarded  him  from  his  enemies  had 
come  without  his  seeking.  From  the  time  of  the  papal 
pronouncement  in  1516,  the  controversy  was  for  him 
concluded.*  He  had  already,  in  15 13,  resigned  all  the 
offices  he  held.  His  studies  were  now  all  that  remained 
to  him,  and  to  continue  them  he  asked  for  peace.  In 
1517,  he  published  his  De  Arte  Cabbalistica,  and  when 
his  watchful  adversaries  attacked  it,  he  did  not  answer. 
Not  even  by  silence  could  he  now  win  the  peace  he 
desired.  Ortuinus  Gratius,  the  victim  of  the  Letters, 
published  in  1518  the  Lamentations  of  the  Obscure 
Men.  As  a  reply  to  the  Letters  it  was  a  failure.  The 
work  was   very  poor  :    its   composition    displayed    a 

1  Hochstraten  had  assisted  at  the  burning  of  Van  Ryswick,  a  secular 
priest,  in  1512 — Article  on  "The  Roman  Index,"  Quarterly  Review, 
October,  1902. 

•  Edinburgh  Review,  p.  193  :  "  Even  the  friends  of  Luther,  in  Luther'i 
lifetime,  acknowledged  that  no  writing  had  contributed  so  powerfully 
to  the  downfall  of  the  papal  domination." 

*  Erasmus,  at  the  beginning  of  15 17,  evidently  considered  the  Reuchlin 
affair  at  an  end,  for  he  then  made  a  collection  of  the  pamphlets  issued 
during  the  dispute  which  he  lent  to  his  friends — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1891, 
and  Nichols,  IT,  513. 


i6o         THE  REUCHLIN  CONTROVERSY 

complete  lack  of  brilliance  and  power  and  inventive 
genius.1 

Whilst  Ortuinus  was  trying  to  answer  the  Reuchlinists 
his  friends  continued  their  assaults  upon  the  old  scholar 
himself.2  At  length,  the  chief  of  the  German  knight- 
hood, Franz  von  Sickingen,  threatened  the  whole 
Dominican  order  in  Germany  that,  if  they  would  not 
end  their  hostility  to  Reuchlin  willingly,  and  pay  back 
to  him  the  costs  which  he  had  incurred  by  the  process, 
the  power  of  the  knighthood  would  be  exerted  against 
them.3  Frightened  for  once,  they  submitted  in  May, 
1520,  but  by  that  time  Pope  Leo  had  terminated  the 
affair  by  deciding  against  the  great  hebraist,  thus 
affording  the  Dominicans  a  barren  triumph.  To 
Reuchlin  it  meant  a  serious  loss  of  money,  but  nothing 
more.  He  had  at  last  obtained  peace.4  To  his  foes  the 
triumph,  such  as  it  was,  was  perilous  and  futile.  For 
the  German  people  had  by  this  time  found  a  hero  worthy 
of  popularity,  and  the  days  were  already  at  hand  when 
the  whole  ecclesiastical  system  in  Germany  would  feel 
the  force  of  the  storm  that  it  had  itself  aroused  breaking 
with  violence  upon  it. 

Two  years  after  the  papal  sentence  had  been  delivered, 
Reuchlin  died.  In  November,  1520,  Erasmus  had 
written  to  him  a  letter  which  sets  forth  truthfully  the 
appreciation  entertained  for  the  old  scholar  by  the  best 
among  his  contemporaries  and  the  renown  which  ever 
since  has  been  attached  to  the  name  of  John  Reuchlin  : 

Thy  memory,  thy  fame,  are  too  deeply  impressed 
upon  the  hearts  of  the  good  for  the  slander  of  thy 
adversaries  to  root  them  thence.  Truth  is  unconquer- 
able, it  will  exalt  thy  name  to  posterity,  even  as  it 
makes  thee  great  in  the  present.1 

1  Majus,  pp.  443-8.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  510-1 1. 

*  See  the  ep.  of  Reuchlin  to  Pirckheimer,  31st  May,  1520 — ibid.,  p.  512. 
*Ibid.,P.s$. 

5  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  590A.  In  Pastor,  VII,  319-25,  is  a  summarized 
account  of  the  Rcuchlinian  dispute,  which  presents  a  distinctly  curialist 


REUCHLIN   PRAISED  BY   ERASMUS     161 

And  after  Reuchlin's  death,  he  let  the  whole  world 
know  the  loss  it  had  sustained,  and  the  inherent 
grandeur  of  the  man,  in  his  colloquy,  Apotheosis 
Capnionis.1 

view  of  it.  It  is  strange,  if  Reuchlin  or  his  writings  were  at  any  time 
heretical,  Bishop  Fisher,  and  other  contemporaries  like  him,  knew  nothing 
of  the  fact. 

1  Majus,  pp.  547  et  seg.,  tells  the  well-known  story  of  the  play  enacted 
before  Charles  V  and  his  brother  Ferdinand,  in  1530,  wherein  Reuchlin, 
Erasmus,  and  Luther,  kindle  a  fire,  over  which  Leo  X  wrings  his  hands, 
and  which  some  try  to  extinguish  with  a  sword  and  others  try  to  extin- 
guish with  oil.  Majus  concludes  the  story  (and  his  book)  with  the 
quotation  of  the  collect  recited  by  Brassicanus  at  the  close  of  the  apothe- 
osis Capnionis — cp.  Des.  Erasmi  Roterodami  Colloquiorum  Familiarium 
Opus  Aureum,  Londini  in  aedibus  Eliz.  Flesher,  1676,  p.  no. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   LITERARY   ACTIVITIES   OF   I515-I516 

The  Latin  Bible  (1452)  had  been  one  of  the  earliest 
efforts  of  the  new  invention  of  printing,  and  the  Jews 
had  had  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  printed  in  1488. ■ 
But  no  edition  of  even  a  single  book  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  its  original  language  appeared  until  some  con- 
siderable time  after  these  dates. 

Prevalent  sentiments  of  reverence  for  the  text  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate,2  and,  it  may  well  be  supposed,  some  com- 
mendable reluctance  to  tamper  with  it,  had  the  effect 
of  causing  the  first  attempts  at  a  study  in  textual 
criticism  to  adopt  the  form  of  a  Polyglot  Bible,  wherein 
the  unaltered  text  of  the  Vulgate  was  shown  side  by 
side  with  the  other  principal  versions.  Very  early  in 
his  career,  Aldo  Manuzio,  the  famous  Italian  scholar- 
printer,  had  formed  the  project  of  issuing  in  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  Latin,  the  entire  Old  Testament  and  other 
inspired  Scriptures,  according  to  this  plan.  But  for 
some  reason,  at  present  impossible  to  ascertain,  he 
discarded  an  enterprise  he  had  been  during  many  years 
meditating.*  The  year  after  Aldo  had  abandoned  the 
task,  it  was  undertaken  by  Cardinal  Francis  Ximenes 
de  Cisneros  in  honour  of  the  birth  of  Prince  Charles, 
afterwards  Emperor  Charles  V.    Upon  the  production 

1  Scrivener  (F.  H.  A.,  LL.D.),   A  Plain   Introduction  to  the  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament,  3rd  edit.,  Cambridge  and  London,  1883,  P-  351- 
1  Jortin  (John,  D.D.),  Life  of  Erasmus,  London,  1808,  III,  41. 
8  Firmin-Didot,  Aide  Manuce,  pp.  59,  60,  177-80. 

162 


THE  COMPLUTENSIAN   POLYGLOT      163 

of  the  celebrated  Polyglot  Bible,  called  from  its  place 
of  origin  Complutensian  (i.e.,  of  Complutum,  or  Alcala), 
the  Cardinal  expended  altogether  about  fifty  thousand 
ducats  of  gold,  but  to  his  great  income  that  was  a  small 
burden.  Ximenes  was  attracted  to  this  work  by  his 
own  deep  love  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  he  read  con- 
stantly and  devoutly,1  by  his  conviction  that  the  reading 
and  understanding  of  the  Bible  had  been  neglected  too 
much  by  ecclesiastics,  and  by  his  recognition  of  the 
written  word  of  God  as  the  surest  safeguard  of  the  truth 
of  the  Christian  faith.8  The  first  volume  to  be  printed 
(torn.  V)  was  not  completed  until  1514.  In  it,  the 
Greek  version  and  the  Latin  Vulgate  were  put  side  by 
side  on  each  page,  with  marks  of  reference  from  one 
to  the  other.*  Five  additional  volumes  followed  so  that, 
at  last,  just  before  the  death  of  Ximenes  in  1517,  the 
entire  work  was  presented  to  him  in  a  complete  state, 
though  it  was  not  published  until  1522. 4 

For  several  years  after  Erasmus  had  given  his  promise 
to  Colet  to  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  sacred 
literature,  he  had  struggled,  with  only  moderate  success, 
to  fulfil  that  promise.8  At  length,  whilst  at  Cambridge, 
he  began  a  study  of  the  works  of  St.  Jerome,  which, 
soon  after,  he  laid  aside,  though  he  did  not  abandon  it, 

1  Fl^chier  (Messire  Esprit,  EvSque  de  Nismes),  Histoire  du  Cardl. 
Ximenes,  Amsterdam,  1693,  II,  770. 

1  Ibid.,  I,  174-6.  It  is  strange  that  one  who  loved  the  Bible  so  much 
should  have  opposed,  as  Ximenes  did,  the  excellent  ordinance  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Granada  for  the  recitation  in  the  Arabic  tongue  of  the 
lessons  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  were  in  the  divine 
Offices,  and  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  in  the  Mass,  for  the  benefit  of 
Moorish  converts — ibid.,  I,  154-5. 

*  Scrivener,  p.  423. 

*  Preacott,  HI,  2Sq,  cites  Tiraboschi  as  stating  that  the  first  attempt 
towards  a  Polyglot  was  the  publication  at  Genoa,  in  1516,  of  a  Psalter 
in  four  of  the  ancient  tongues. 

5Allen,  II,  182,  proves  conclusively  the  influence,  in  this  particular, 
of  Colet  over  Erasmus,  and  shows  that  the  latter  had  been  engaged  in 
making  a  version  of  the  New  Testament  many  years  earlier  than  is 
usually  supposed. 


164  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

for  a  study  of  the  New  Testament.  However  the 
chronology  of  his  epistles  be  arranged,  it  is  noticeable 
how  these  two  studies  alternated.1  The  expectation  of 
publishing  the  results  of  his  work  upon  St.  Jerome  was 
the  particular  cause  of  his  seeking  the  printing-office 
of  Froben  at  Basle  in  August,  1514,2  but  once  there  the 
place  of  importance  was  given  to  his  New  Testament, 
in  view  of  the  approaching  publication  of  the  Com- 
plutensian  which  scholars  throughout  Europe  were 
eagerly  awaiting.  The  plan  of  this  latter  differed 
widely  enough  from  that  upon  which  Erasmus  had  con- 
ducted his  collation  of  the  New  Testament,  yet  Froben, 
with  the  eye  of  an  astute  publisher,  observed  the  rare 
opportunity  afforded  him  by  these  lucubrations  of  the 
Dutch  scholar.  Whilst  the  edition  of  Jerome  was  put 
in  hands  for  printing,  Erasmus  was  so  urged  to  hasten 
the  preparation  of  the  New  Testament  for  the  printer, 
that,  within  a  few  days  of  his  arrival  at  Basle,  he  wrote 
to  Reuchlin  for  the  loan  to  John  Froben  of  a  useful 
manuscript  to  assist  the  work  ;3  and,  in  his  subsequent 
correspondence,  he  found  it  necessary  to  claim  the 
patience  of  his  friends  for  his  rough,  or  short,  epistles, 
or  for  his  omitting  altogether  to  send  replies,  on 
account  of  the  immense  toil  that  now  filled  his  days.* 
No  sooner  did  it  become  known  that  Erasmus  was 
engaged  upon  this  undertaking  of  not  only  revising 
the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament — a  matter  of  no 
serious  moment  in  the  opinion  of  theologians— but  also 
making  a  new  Latin  version  than  conservative  theo- 
logians felt  themselves  startled  into  remonstrance 
against  such  piety.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the 
Latin  Vulgate  had  been  the  received  version  of  the 

1  Cp.  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  115B  and  135B,  c,  with  io6a  and  ioid.  See  also 
his  ep.  to  Servatius,  ibid.,  1529c. 

2  Nichols,  II,  135,  161  ;  Allen,  II,  183  note  20. 

3  Majus,  p.  244.  He  promised  that  the  codex  should  return  untouched 
and  uninjured.  The  codex  was  lent  and  in  a  later  letter  Erasmus  thanked 
him — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1558E. 

4  Ibid.,  Ill,  1532A,  1551D. 


ESTIMATE   OF  THE   LATIN   VULGATE  165 

Holy  Scriptures  in  the  western  Church  for  a  thousand 
years,  and  that  the  sentiments  of  reverence  then  usual 
towards  its  text  did  not  come  into  vogue  at  any  recent 
date,  but  were  themselves  the  legacy  of  the  ages  anterior 
to  Alcuin.1  What,  indeed,  Erasmus  had  set  out  to 
perform  was  little  short  of  a  revolution  of  the  mental 
attitude  of  his  contemporaries  towards  the  text  of 
Holy  Writ.  One  piece  of  criticism  is  always  liable  to 
suggest  another,  and,  consequently,  it  is  not  improbable 
that,  in  effecting  a  change  of  view  regarding  the  sacred 
records  of  the  Church,  Erasmus  assisted  somewhat  in 
originating  a  similar  alteration  towards  the  mediaeval 
Church  itself.  Thus,  as  Laurentius  Valla  became  the 
precursor  of  Erasmus,2  Erasmus,  to  some  extent, 
became  the  precursor  of  Luther.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  but  this  biblical  work  of  Erasmus,  though  it 
forms  his  chef-d'oeuvre,  was  that  particular  one  of  all 
his  books  which  aroused  most  hatred  and  malice  against 
him.3  Accordingly,  a  friend  of  Erasmus  at  Louvain 
was  prevailed  upon  to  express  the  current  ideas  of 
theologians  generally  on  the  dangerous  course  his 
famous  compatriot  was  pursuing.4  Martin  van  Dorp, 
in  fact,  claimed  to  be  acting  the  part  of  a  true  friend 
to  Erasmus  in  delivering  a  protest,  or  admonition, 
against  the  projected  publication.  At  a  later  date, 
Erasmus  had  occasion  to  acknowledge  the  sincerity  of 
Martin  van  Dorp  himself  when  he  gave  friendly  inten- 
tions as  the  reason  for  his  utterance  of  the  protest 
against  the  revision  of  the  New  Testament.  But 
Erasmus  felt,  notwithstanding,  that  behind  Dorp  were 
instigators  of  less  amicable  dispositions  towards  him- 
self; 5  and  he  did  not  omit  to  point  out,  in  his  reply  to 

1  Scrivener,  p.  350;    De  Laur,  II,  283-4.    Cp.  Berger,  La  Bible,  etc., 
p.  28. 

2  Symonds,  Reviv.  of  Learning  in  Italy,  pp.  258-62. 

3  Gasquet,  Eve  of  Reformation,  p.  176. 

4  Ep.  of  Dorpius  to  Erasmus — Jortin,  III,  39-42.     Nichols,  II,   168, 
dates  this  ep.  October,  and  Allen,  II,  10,  September. 

•  Fras.  Op.,  Ill,  583D. 


166  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

Dorp,  the  rather  equivocal  circumstance  that  the  epistle 
ostensibly  addressed  to  him,  had  not  been  forwarded 
to  him  but  circulated  in  the  Netherlands,  where  after 
six  or  seven  months  it  came  into  his  hands  only  by 
chance.1 

In  the  early  portion  of  his  epistle  Dorp  criticized  the 
Encomium  Moriae  and  defended  the  clerical  order.  In 
doing  so,  he  uttered  many  real  truths,  and  none  more 
profound  than  this  :  that  seriously  minded  Christians 
did  not,  with  any  unanimity,  agree  that  the  book  was 
calculated  to  do  good.* 

From  the  Praise  of  Folly  Dorp  passed  to  the  pro- 
jected edition  of  St.  Jerome.  To  this  work  he  gave 
his  cordial  approval,  but  very  different  was  the  judg- 
ment he  expressed  upon  that  other,  and  more  estimable, 
work  which  Erasmus  was  preparing.  It  was  here  that 
Dorp  revealed  the  true  purpose  of  his  admonitory 
epistle  : — 

I  understand,  however,  that  thou  hast  corrected  the 
New  Testament,  and  hast  added  notes  in  more  than  a 
thousand  places,  for  the  benefit  of  theologians.  Here 
once  more  I  desire,  in  a  most  friendly  way,  to  act  the 
part  of  a  warning  friend.  There  is  no  need  for  me 
to  mention  what  Laurentius  (Valla)  and  Jacques 
Lefevre  have  accomplished  in  the  same  department, 
for  thou,  I  do  not  doubt,  wilt  far  surpass  them.  The 
matter  now  in  question  is  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  to  be  corrected,  and  Greek  codices  employed  to 
emend  the  Latin.   .   .   . 

If  there  should  occur  a  rendering  by  the  Latin  trans- 
lator, whose  signification  differs  from  that  of  a  Greek 
codex,  then  good-bye  to  the  Greeks,   I   hold  to  the 

1  Erasmus  (ep.  of  ioth  July,  1 5 16)  warmly  praised  Dorp  for  exhorting 
the  audience,  to  whom  he  was  lecturing,  to  undertake  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  i8c>7r.  From  this  time  onwards  they  became 
mutually  very  friendly — ibid.,  1631-2E,  33 id,  876D. 

1  Jortin,  III,  39.  Shortly  after  Erasmus  had  replied  to  this  ep., 
Thomas  More  wrote  a  long  Apologia  pro  Moria  Erasmi  ad  Martinum 
Dorpium  (Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1892-1916),  which  is  condemned  by  Quiroga's 
Index  (1601). 


EPISTLE  OF  MARTIN  VAN  DORP      167 

Latin,  for  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that  Greek  manu- 
scripts can  be  more  reliable  than  the  Latin. 
Augustine,  doubtless,  prescribed  the  rule  that  Latin 
streams  should  receive  supplies  from  Greek  springs. 
That  suited  his  own  age  well,  in  which  the  Church 
had  not  yet  authorized  any  one  Latin  version,  and  the 
Greek  springs  had  not  become  impure.  This  is  not 
the  case  now.   .   .   . 

But  doubts  will  be  raised  in  the  minds  of  some  if 
they,  I  will  not  say,  learn  from  thy  work,  but  if  they 
even  hear  anyone  hint  that  there  is  the  slightest  mis- 
take in  Scripture.  Then  that  will  happen  concerning 
which  Augustine  wrote  to  Jerome  :  "If  even  copy- 
ists' errors  be  acknowledged  to  exist  in  Holy  Scrip- 
ture what  authority  will  it  retain?  "  I  am  urged  by 
these  considerations,  dearest  Erasmus,  to  pray  and 
beseech  thee,  by  the  mutual  friendly  relations -between 
us,  to  which  thy  absence  brings  no  change,  and  by 
thine  own  natural  kindness  and  honesty,  either  to  cor- 
rect those  books  of  the  New  Testament  only  in  which, 
whilst  preserving  the  signification  intact,  thou  canst 
suggest  a  better  rendering,  or,  if  thou  dost  at  all 
notify  an  alteration  in  the  signification,  to  answer  my 
arguments  in  a  prefatory  epistle.   .  .   . 

Farewell,  most  learned,  and  to  me  most  dear, 
Erasmus. 

Martin  van  Dorp  wrote  his  epistle  in  October,  1514. 
As  has  been  already  observed,  Erasmus  obtained  a 
copy  of  it  for  the  first  time  only  when  he  passed  through 
Antwerp,  in  the  following  March,  on  his  way  to  Eng- 
land for  a  short  visit.  He  had  no  time  then  to  reply 
to  it,  but  immediately  on  his  arrival  in  London  he 
penned  an  irrefutable  rejoinder.1 

He  began  by  assuring  Dorp  that  he  was  not  at  all 
offended  by  his  admonitory  letter  (jurgatrix  epistola), 
but  rather  highly  pleased  with  it,  because  it  proved  a 

1  Eras.  Op.,  IX,  2  et  seq.  ;  Nichols,  II,  182.  Allen,  II,  90,  prcfen 
to  date  this  reply  from  Antwerp  in  May,  on  the  return  of  Erasmus  from 
England.  It  was  on  its  first  appearance  dated  as  from  that  city,  and  this 
would  indicate  that  at  any  rate  the  final  draft  for  the  printer  was  made 
at  Antwerp. 


168  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

refreshing  change  from  the  numbers  of  laudatory  and 
flattering  epistles  constantly  arriving  from  all  parts. 
Erasmus  then  proceeded  to  justify  his  Moria.  Just  as 
he  had  already  claimed  in  the  preface  to  that  book,  so 
now  he  maintained  that  no  one  person  was  aimed  at, 
no  one  class  held  up  to  ridicule  in  it,  and  only  a  self- 
convicted  offender  would  feel  injured.  The  Moria  was, 
according  to  his  own  assertion,  a  work  which  portrayed 
in  quite  another  aspect  what  he  had  dealt  with  in  more 
serious  publications1: — 

I  have  not  treated  of  anything  in  the  Moria  but  what 
has  been  already  put  forth  in  the  Enchiridion — the 
only  difference  being  that  in  the  former  it  is  conducted 
in  an  amusing  manner.  I  have  desired  not  to  sting 
but  to  reprove ;  not  to  vex  but  to  benefit ;  not  to  harm 
but  to  improve  the  ways  of  men. 

Coming  at  last  to  the  condemnation  of  his  labours 
upon  the  New  Testament,  Erasmus  thus  replied  : — 

Thou  dost  not  like  anything  to  be  altered  by  me, 
save  in  so  far  as  the  Greek  texts  may  possibly  express 
the  meaning  clearer,  and  thou  assertest  there  is  no 
fault  in  the  version  we  commonly  use.  .  .  .  May  I 
ask  thee,  most  learned  Dorp  (supposing  thou  writest 
facts),  why  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Ambrose  have 
quotations  different  from  what  we  read?  Why  does 
Jerome  censure  and  amend  expressly  many  of  the 
readings  in  our  version  ?  What  wilt  thou  make  of  so 
much  convergent  testimony  as  this  :  the  Greek  texts 
have  different  readings  which  Jerome  follows  in  his 
quotations,  with  which  the  most  ancient  Latin  versions 
agree,  and  which  suit  the  sense  much  better?  Wilt 
thou,  treating  all  this  with  scorn,  hold  to  a  copy  of 
thine  probably  vitiated  by  the  mistakes  of  a 
copyist?  .   .   .2 

When  thou  writest  that  we  are  not  to  diverge  from 
this  version  of  ours,  approved  forsooth  by  so  many 

1  Allen,  II,  93  :  "  Nee  aliud  agitur  in  Moria  sub  specie  lusus,  quam 
actum  est  in  Enchiridio.  Admoncre  voluimus,  non  mordere  ;  prodesse, 
non  laedere  ;   consulere  moribus  hominum,  non  officere." 

1  Ibid.,  109. 


REPLY  OF  ERASMUS  169 

councils,  thou  art  adopting  the  fashion  of  the  com- 
mon sort  of  theologians,  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
attributing  to  ecclesiastical  authority  whatever  may, 
by  any  chance,  have  crept  into  general  use.  But 
please  name  for  me  any  one  council  wherein  this 
version  has  been  established.  No  one  knows  by 
whom  it  has  been  established,  or  whose  it  is ;  the  very 
prefaces  of  Jerome  testify  that  it  is  not  his.  But 
granted  that  some  council  has  established  it,  was  the 
sanction  such  as  to  prohibit  its  ever  being  corrected 
according  to  the  Greek  originals?  Was  the  sanction 
such  as  to  cover  all  the  errors  that  might  by  any  means 
creep  into  it?  .   .   . 

I  do  not  perceive  why  thou  citest  against  me  these 
two  (Valla  and  Lefevre).  Dost  thou  mean  to  turn 
me  from  my  work  by  showing  that  it  has  already  been 
executed?  Time  will  prove  that  I  have  not  without 
good  reason  undertaken  it  after  these  important  men. 
But  perhaps  thou  meanest  that  their  labours  did  not 
commend  themselves  to  theologians?  Truly,  I  do 
not  observe  what  addition  that  can  make  to  the  old 
dislike  towards  Laurentius  (Valla).  Of  Lefevre  I  hear 
nothing  but  approbation.  Why  shall  I  not  perform  a 
a  business  altogether  similar  to  theirs?  Laurentius 
merely  accomplished  a  limited  number  of  annotations, 
and  that,  too,  in  a  hasty  and  sketchy  fashion.1 
Lefevre  has  published  Commentaries  on  the  Pauline 
Epistles  only.  He  has  also  translated  these  accord- 
ing to  a  method  of  his  own,  and  if  he  observed  any  dis- 
crepancy he  made  a  note  of  it  afterwards.  I,  however, 
have  translated  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament 
according  to  the  Greek  texts,  the  Greek  readings 
being  at  once  given  for  the  sake  of  easy 
reference.   .   .   . 

As  to  the  Church,  indeed,  I  am  not  at  all  afraid  to 
dedicate  my  lucubrations  to  any  bishop,  cardinal,  or 
even  Pope  of  Rome,  if  only  he  be  the  sort  we  have 
now.  Finally,  I  have  no  doubt  that  thou  thyself  wilt 
send  me  hearty  congratulations,  when  the  book  is 
published  (though  now  thou  art  admonishing  me  to 
refrain  from  publishing  it),  provided  that  thou  makest 

1  "  In  transcursu  leuique,  quod  dici  solet,  brachio." 


170  LITERARY  ACTIVITIES 

even  a  slight  acquaintance  with  that  literature  without 
which  no  proper  judgment  can  be  formed  of  these 
matters.    .  .    .' 

Probably  on  his  way  back  to  Basle,  Erasmus  met 
Dorp  and  made  some  arrangement  with  him  about 
printing  the  two  epistles,  the  Protest  and  the  Reply,  as 
the  most  honourable  way  of  correcting  the  clandestine 
circulation  of  the  former.  They  were,  accordingly, 
published  at  Louvain  (October,  15 15)  as  an  appendix 
to  a  commentary  of  Erasmus  on  the  Psalm  Beatus  Vir. 
Dorp  supervised  the  whole  production.8  But  Erasmus 
took  care  to  have  his  little  book  preceded  by  the  publi- 
cation (August,  151 5)  at  Basle  of  four  epistles,  for  he 
intended  to  guard  himself  from  his  foes  by  making  it 
evident  to  the  Christian  public  that  he  had  the  pro- 
tection or  countenance  of  the  highest  authorities  in 
the  Church.  Of  these  epistles,  two  had  been  written 
by  him  to  Cardinals  Grimani  and  Riario  about  the  time 
he  despatched  his  reply  to  Dorp,  and  another  to  Pope 
Leo  X  a  few  days  later ;  *  the  fourth  was  that  to  Dorp. 
He  had  requested  Leo's  permission  to  dedicate  his  work 
to  him.  Erasmus  rightly  judged  that  the  acceptance 
by  the  Pope  of  the  dedication  of  the  works  of  St. 
Jerome  to  himself  would  cast  the  shadow  of  papal 
approval  over  all  his  labours.  The  event  manifested 
his  foresight,  for  Leo  not  only  accorded  his  full  sanction 
to  all  the  publications  executed  by  Erasmus,  but  also 
enclosed  in  his  reply  to  that  scholar  a  letter  to  King 
Henry  VIII,  containing  a  recommendation  of  him  to 
the  royal  favour.*  About  the  same  time,  Cardinal 
Riario  also  sent  an  answer  approving  of  the  revised 
edition  of  St.  Jerome.  •  So  far,  therefore,  as  ecclesiastical 
authority  went,  Erasmus  had  acquired  all  that  he  ever 
could  have  wished. 

Soon  after  his  first  arrival  at  Basle  (August,  1514), 
the  humanist  had  written  to  Colet  an  epistle  which  has 

1  Allen,  II,  112,  113.  *  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  222c. 

*  Ibid.,  143E,  HSr,  154B.         k  Ibid.,  \$6r,  157.  •  Ibid.,  158s. 


THE  NOVUM  INSTRUMENTUM         171 

not  been  preserved,  but  to  which  the  latter  replied  on 
20th  October,  15141: — 

All  thy  friends  here  are  well.  Canterbury  con- 
tinues in  his  customary  gentleness,  Lincoln  now 
reigns  at  York,  London  does  not  cease  to  harass  me.* 
Day  by  day  I  think  of  my  withdrawal  and  hiding-place 
among  the  Carthusians.  Our  nest  is  almost  ready. 
When  thou  dost  return  to  us,  as  far  as  I  can  guess, 
thou  wilt  find  me  there,  dead  to  the  world. 

A  considerable  time  elapsed  before  any  further  com- 
munication passed  between  Colet  and  Erasmus.  The 
latter  was  extremely  busy  in  the  printing-office  of 
Froben,  and  replying,  or  endeavouring  to  reply,  to  the 
numerous  letters  of  greeting  and  congratulation  which 
he  received  from  correspondents  with  many  of  whom 
hitherto  he  had  no  relations  whatever.  Probably  the 
next  interchange  of  news  between  the  Dean  and  his 
friend  was  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  when  that  now 
famous  scholar  paid  his  short  visit  to  England  in  the 
spring  of  1515.  And  when  Erasmus  had  returned  to 
Basle,  he  entered  into  that  immense  two-fold  labour 
of  overseeing  the  edition  of  the  New  Testament  and 
St.  Jerome,  to  which  he  alluded  in  an  epistle  to  Pirck- 
heimer  in  October."  In  December  he  wrote  to  the 
papal  nuncio  in  England  (Bishop  Caraffa)  that  the  New 
Testament  was  almost  finished,  and  somewhat  to  his 
own  satisfaction,  but  that  he  himself  was  worn  out 
with  the  toil.4  On  7th  March,  1516 — a  memorable 
date  in  history — Erasmus  mentioned  to  Urbanus 
Regius,  with  that  undesigned  brevity  with  which 
tragic  or  momentous  events  are  often  ushered  into  the 
world  : — 

1  In  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1573  the  date  is  given  as  15 16  ;  but  Lupton, 
Colet,  p.  215,  Seebohm,  Oxford  Ref.,  p.  305,  Nichols,  II,  171,  and  Allen, 
II,  Ep.  No.  314,  have  decided  that  the  true  date  is  1 5 14. 

1  That  is,  Archbishop  Warham,  Wolsey,  and  Bishop  Fitzjamei 
respectively. 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1637c. 

*Ibid.,  15341. 


172  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

The  New  Testament  is  published.  The  final 
colophon  is  being  put  to  Jerome.      Farewell.1 

His  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  and  the  Latin 
translation  (which  he,  at  its  first  impression,  entitled 
Novum  Instrumcntum)  was  therefore  delivered  to  the 
Christian  world  in  March,  1516.  The  Dedication  to 
Pope  Leo  was  prefixed  to  it.  And  now  the  aim  of  the 
companion-work  which,  for  so  long  a  time,  conjointly 
with  his  biblical  studies,  had  formed  the  serious  occu- 
pation of  Erasmus,  became  apparent.  For,  in  order 
to  silence  the  objections  of  detractors  and  to  defend 
himself  against  all  who  should  charge  him  with  pre- 
sumption in  executing  a  revision  of  the  Vulgate  or  with 
novelty  in  the  doctrines  he  advocated  in  this  work,  he 
had  arranged  that  the  edition  of  the  works  of  St. 
Jerome  should  follow  immediately  upon  that  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  a  means  of  proving  to  all  the  world 
that  the  course  he  had  taken  was  open  to  no  such 
accusations,  unless  indeed  his  calumniators  were  pre- 
pared to  set  themselves  against  the  authority  of  that 
renowned  Father.  But  the  outburst  of  enthusiasm 
with  which  the  Novum  Instrumcntum  was  received 
precluded  the  necessity  of  a  defence  based  upon  the 
sanction  of  St.  Jerome.  A  typical  instance  of  the  senti- 
ments which  educated  men  entertained  towards  Eras- 
mus's great  biblical  achievement,  is  to  be  found  in  a 
letter  written  to  him  by  Pirckheimer 2 : — 

Thou  hast  saved  thy  name  from  every  assault  of 
time,  and  hast  accomplished  a  matter  not  only  accept- 
able to  God,  Great  and  Best,  but  also  necessary  and 
useful  to  Christ's  faithful  people.  .  .  .  My  two  sisters 
salute  thee,  the  one  an  Abbess  of  Sta.  Clara,  the  other 
a  member  of  the  same  order.  They  read  thy  writings 
eagerly,  but  now  are,  above  measure,  delighted  with 
the  New  Testament,  by  which  women,  much  wiser 
than  some  men  who  fancy  themselves  rather  clever,' 
are  profoundly  touched. 

x  Ibid.,  1554A.  *  Ibid.,  196c,  e.  3  "  Quisibiscioli  videntur." 


REVISION  OF  THE  GREEK  TEXT       173 

This  letter  was  written  on  20th  May,  15 16.  Before 
5th  June,  Erasmus  was  able  to  write  to  two  English 
friends,  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Fisher,  that  the  New 
Testament  was  finding  greater  favour  than  he  had  hoped 
for,  even  with  some  whom  he  had  considered  likely  to 
have  been  detractors.1 

Very  soon  Erasmus  determined  upon  a  new  edition. 
No  one  knew  better  than  himself  the  many  mistakes 
overlooked,  the  numerous  blemishes  observable,  in  the 
first  edition  ;  these,  indeed,  were  incidental  to  it,  for 
the  work  of  recension  had  been  done  far  too  hastily. 
In  April  he  had  written  to  Ellenbogen2: — 

The  New  Testament  has  been  hurried  out  headlong 
rather  than  edited. 

He  now  begged  his  friends  to  help  him  with  their 
advice  regarding  whatever  errors  they  might  have 
discovered  in  the  book.3 

An  examination  into  the  MSS.  employed  by  him 
throughout  his  different  recensions  and  editions  of  the 
Greek  text  reveals  the  fact,  by  no  means  to  be  wondered 
at,  that  in  no  case  did  he  use  a  manuscript  of  paramount 
value.  The  most  ancient  and  serviceable  of  them  was  a 
cursive,  perhaps  belonging  to  the  tenth  or  twelfth 
century,4  which  contained  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and 
Pauline  Epistles.  An  illustration  of  the  difficulties  which 
Erasmus  had  to  surmount  is  afforded  by  his  treatment 
of  the  final  six  verses  of  the  Apocalypse.  Reuchlin's 
manuscript  (Cod.  1  of  the  Apoc),  which  was  the  only 
one  he  used  for  this  book,  is  deficient  in  these.  Eras- 
mus,  therefore,   boldly   translated   them   into    Greek 

1  Ibid.,  380E,  and  255 1.  Even  Cardinal  Ximenes,  part  of  who??  great 
work  had  been  forestalled  by  Erasmus,  could  not  refrain — *o  his  isting 
honour  be  it  said — from  expressing  his  admiration  :  "  Utinam,  in  juiens, 
sic  prophetent  omnes  :  tu  si  potcs,  adjer  meliora,  ne  damna  alic-.  im  indus- 
friam." — Eras.  Op.,  IX,  2840E  (Apol.  agst.  J.  Lopez  Stunic  ). 

2  Nichols,  II,  251  ;  Allen,  II,  226. 

8  As,  for  example,  William  Latimer — Ems.  Op.,  Ill,  255B. 
'  Scrivener,  p.  179  ;  Allen  II,  164  el  seq. 


174  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

from  the  Latin.1  It  is  not  without  interest  to  observe 
that  in  two  instances  Erasmus  consulted  the  precious 
Codex  Vaticanus  (B)  ;  but  owing  either  to  the  incon- 
venience of  making  references,  or  to  ignorance  of  its 
great  value,  he  did  not  consult  it  as  frequently  as  he 
ought  to  have  done.8 

In  passing,  we  may  here  remark  that,  if  the  MSS. 
employed  by  Erasmus  to  fix  the  text  of  his  Greek 
Testament  were  of  small  value,  so  also  were  those  which 
the  Complutensian  editors  used.  They  claimed,  no 
doubt,  to  have  received  assistance  from  codices  belong- 
ing to  the  Vatican  Library,  and  really  did  obtain  the 
loan  of  some  which,  however,  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  of  any  remarkable  importance.  Biographers  of 
Ximenes  have  been  in  the  habit  of  stating  that  he 
employed  Latin  and  Greek  MSS.  that  were  at  least 
eight  hundred  years  old,*  but  an  investigation  of  the 
Complutensian  readings  has  disposed  of  the  assignment 
of  any  such  high  antiquity  to  his  authorities. 

Erasmus  published,  in  all,  five  editions  of  his  New 
Testament  (those  of  1516,  1519,  1522,  1527,  and  1535), 
introducing  careful  emendations  into  each  of  them,  and 
availing  himself,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  editions,  of  the 
labours  of  the  Spanish  scholars.* 

The  boldness  which  characterized  Erasmus's  dis- 
tinctly critical  efforts  manifested  itself  also  in  the  Pre- 
faces and  Annotations  which  accompanied  the  text. 
In  his  Paraclesis,  he  expressed  his  surprise  at  finding 
that  Plato  and  Pythagoras,  Zeno  and  Aristotle,  had 
more  devoted  followers  than  Christ,  and  he  asserted 

1  Stunica  did  the  same  with  i  John  v,  7-8  in  the  Compluteniian 
Polyglot — Scrivener,  pp.  432,  653. 

*  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  648c;  In  Nov.  Test.  Annot.  (1527),  p.  697.  See 
Allen,  II,  164-6,  for  a  full  account  of  the  MSS.  Erasmus  used,  and  the 
different  recensions  he  made  from  Latin  and  Greek  codices  :  cp.  also  ibid. 
II,  182-4. 

sFlechier,  I,  178. 

*  It  was  not  until  1522  that  Erasmus  was  able  to  examine  the  Com- 
plutensian Polyglot — Allen,  II,  166, 


ERASMUS'S  COMMENTS  175 

the  truth  that  Christ  is  the  only  teacher  from  heaven, 
and  alone  is  capable  of  teaching  all  that  appertains  to 
salvation,  because  Himself  the  Author  of  it.1  Christ's 
philosophy,  besides,  is  to  be  found  in  few  books,  and 
those  easily  to  be  understood.  Then,  in  a  bold  outburst 
of  candour,  he  negatived  the  notions  prevalent  amongst 
theologians  as  to  the  inadvisability  of  vernacular 
translations  of  the  Scriptures.8  Nor  did  he  omit  to 
declare  the  benefit  arising  from  an  intelligent  use  of  the 
Scriptures': — 

These  present  thee  with  the  living  image  of  His 
most  holy  mind,  and  altogether  depict  Him  so  com- 
pletely, speaking,  healing,  dying,  rising  again,  that  if 
He  were  actually  before  thine  eyes  thou  wouldest  not 
more  truly  behold  Him. 

Erasmus,  in  his  Annotations  to  the  New  Testament, 
continued  to  exhibit  the  intrepid  candour  which  is  the 
distinguishing  mark  of  the  Pa/aclesis.  Rejecting  the 
conventional  method  of  interpretation,  he  followed 
closely  in  the  footsteps  of  St.  Jerome,  of  Valla  and 
Poggio,  of  Colet  and  Lefevre,  and,  indeed,  of  all  those 
who  are  not  withheld  by  some  prevalent  misconcep- 
tions from  examining  critically  into  the  significance  of 
passages  and  expressions  that  require  elucidation  or 
correction.  Accordingly,  even  if  that  were  true  which 
has  been  asserted,  that  Erasmus  did  nothing  to  solve 
the  problems  of  biblical  criticism,*  he  at  least  initiated 
that  high  art,  in  these  Annotations,  by  suggesting  it 
and  claiming  liberty  to  engage  in  it  without  hindrance. 

However  great  might  be  the  freedom  of  investigation 

1  Eras.  Op.,  VI,  First  page  of  the  Paraclesis. 

*  Ibid.,  second  and  third  pages. 

8  Ibid.,  fourth  page. 

4  Dr.  R.  Y.  Tyrrell,  in  the  Academy  of  5th  Sept.,  1908,  quoting  Mark. 
Pattison.  As  something  of  a  corrective  of  such  an  opinion,  consult 
Berber,  T.a  Bible,  etc.,  chap.  IV.,  fcrasme  et  la  Critique. 

The  fourth  edition  (1527)  of  the  Annotations  is  that  cited  here. 
Erasmus  introduced  slight  changes  into  each  successive  edition,  but  this 
rather  late  one  may  be  taken  m  containing  his  matured  opinions. 


176  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

which  Erasmus  permitted  himself  to  exercise  in  his 
comments,  it  is  noticeable  that  dogma  came  hardly  at 
all  within  its  scope.  If  there  are  few  dogmatical  state- 
ments in  Colet's  Lectures,  still  fewer  are  present  in 
Erasmus's  Annotations.  Whoever  enters  on  a  study 
of  the  latter  work  with  a  view  to  an  examination  into 
the  opinions  of  Erasmus  upon  the  received  beliefs  of 
his  time  will  find  little  to  reward  the  labour  of  investi- 
gation. As  is  true  of  Colet  and  Lefevre,  it  is  always 
possible  to  observe,  on  the  one  hand,  how  conservative 
Erasmus  is,  how  closely  he  adheres  to  the  authoritative 
doctrines,  and  yet,  on  the  other,  how  he  voices  shades 
of  thought  connected  with  them  that  only  found  full 
expression  in  the  teachings  of  the  later  Protestant 
reformers.  For  instance,  on  the  cardinal  subject  of 
the  Eucharist,  he  mostly  confined  himself  to  quotations 
from  the  Fathers,  and,  even  in  the  passages  where  he 
allowed  his  own  sentiments  to  appear  he  cautiously 
restrained  himself  from  the  utterance  of  explicit  or  full 
comments.1  But  he  spoke  at  greater  length  on  the 
Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  and  the 
worship  accorded  to  her,  and  put  forward  reasons 
against  the  cult.2  He  discussed,  and  with  freedom  too, 
the  doubtful  value  of  praying  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  for 
her  intercession  with  Our  Lord.3  When  he  touched  on 
the  question  of  St.  Peter's  primacy,  he  not  only  declined 
to  apply  to  that  apostle  Christ's  well-known  pro- 
nouncement, "  On  this  Rock  I  will  build  My  Church,"* 
but  he  even  called  attention  to  the  order  in  which  the 
Apostles'  names  were  recited  by  the  Evangelists,  by 
way  of  proof  that  St.  Peter  was  not  "  Head  of  the 
Apostles."8 

1  In  Nov.  Test.  Amwtationes,  ed.  of  1527,  pp.  97  m.,  231  m.,  and 
442-3,  423  m. —  £.£.,  p.  443  end  (Com.  on.  1  Cor.  xi,  26,  27) :  "  Hie  palam 
corpus  consecratum  panem  vocat,  non  quod  adhuc  sit  panis  eo  modo  quo 
fuit,  sed  quod  sit  panis  vivus  et  vitam  conferens  veram." 

1  pp.  56,  57.       3  p.  161.  *  p.  68  m. 

6  p.  43  end  :  "  Indicat  divus  Hieronymus  non  eodem  ordine  recenseri 
Apostolos  ab  aliis  E%rangelistis  quo  a  Matthaeo  :  ne  quis  ob  hoc  omnium 
prim  urn  faciat  Pet  rum,  quod  hie  primo  loco  ponitur." 


ERASMUS'S  OPINIONS  177 

But,  in  truth,  Erasmus's  notes  are  eminently 
practical  ;  they  treat  of  the  ordinary  matters  of  reli- 
gion, apart  altogether  from  questions  of  doctrine.  Here 
we  encounter  far-off  echoes,  as  it  were,  of  the  voice  of 
Folly,  save  that  the  satirical  and  bantering  tone  has 
been  exchanged  for  the  grave  and  indignant.  Con- 
temporary forms  of  righteousness  draw  from  him  out- 
bursts of  bitter  dissatisfaction.1  The  superstitious 
veneration  of  relics  incurs  his  severe  condemnation.* 
He  reprimands  those  Christians  who  worship  saints 
superstitiously.3  He  disapproves  of  the  ever-increasing 
number  of  holy-days  and  expresses  the  belief  that  their 
fewness  would  conduce  much  more  to  real  piety  than 
their  multitude.*  Ceremonial  observances,  he  declares, 
are  dangerously  liable  to  become  mechanical  and  thus 
obscure  the  Person  of  Christ.5 

We  have  already  noted  the  extreme  caution  of 
Erasmus  where  common  or  authoritative  Church 
doctrines  were  concerned.  In  two  particulars,  however, 
he  was,  by  other  considerations,  aroused  out  of  his  usual 
reserve.  One  of  these  had  regard  to  Matrimony.  He 
did  not  explicitly  say  that  Matrimony  did  not  con- 
stitute a  sacrament,  but  he  brought  forward  an  amount 
of  proof  for  such  a  judgment  sufficient  to  authorize  the 
conclusion  that  this  was  his  own  conviction.6 

The  second  point  on  which  Erasmus  uttered  an  un- 
hesitating opinion  was  the  biblical  signification  of 
"  repentance."  Contrary  to  the  ideas  common  in  his 
time,  he  insisted  on  the  truly  introspective  force  of  the 
expression.7 

In  his  Annotations  to  the  New  Testament  his  stern 
denunciations  of  the  faults  of  contemporary  ecclesi- 

1  p.  183  beg.         2  p.  88  beg.         3  p.  378  m.         *  pp.  382-3. 

6  p.  625  end  :  "  Qui  Mosaicis  ceremoniis,  Christum  tendebant  abolere." 
•  p.  549.     Like  most  others  of  his  age,  he  assigned  to  virginity  the 

higher  place  ;  but  he  averred,  with  the  earnestness  that  sprang  from 
experience,  that  compulsory  celibacy  tended  to  evil — see  pages  58,  76, 
413,  600, and  602. 

7  pp.  17-18,  1 10  end,  179  m.,  270  end,  484,  and  503  beg. 


178  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

astics  surpass  those  contained  in  the  sallies  of  the  Moria. 
Here,  instead  of  witty  innuendoes,  there  are  direct 
charges  against  them  of  not  teaching  faithfully  the 
gospel  of  Christ  but  twisting  it  to  their  own  personal 
advantage,  of  being  deplorably  ignorant  of  the  most 
essential  parts  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  of  wasting 
time  in  vain,  and  occasionally  impious,  disputations.1 
Their  inordinate  passion  for  this  world's  honours, 
wealth,  and  power  was  exposed  to  the  reproaches  of  a 
Christian  public  which  had  long  since  grown  impatient 
of  it.2 

No  doubt  it  was  by  way  of  admonition  to  the  self- 
appointed  critic,  of  his  own  doings  that  he  declared 
the  clergy  altogether  too  fond  of  c  ndemning  as  heresy 
whatever  appear -d  strange  or  new  to  them,  without 
assigning  any  sufficient  reason  for  the  reprobation.8 

Divine  worship,  in  the  opinion  of  Erasmus,  was  not 
conducted  as  it  should  be.  Like  some  other  enlight- 
ened men  of  that  epoch,  he  perceived  that  prayers 
without  any  intelligent  signification  to  the  worshippers 
resolved  themselves  into  pious  incantations.  Ap- 
parently, he  desired,  as  Lefevre  and  many  others  did,* 
that  all  prayers  and  divine  offices  should  be  conducted 
in  the  native  language  of  the  worshippers. 

At  all  times,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  Erasmus 
expressed  acrimonious  censures  upon  the  monastic 
orders.  Formerly  the  protectors  and  guardians  of 
erudition  they  had  now  become  its  gaolers  and 
oppressors  ;    the  age  of  their  practical  worth  to  the 

1  pp.  87  beg.,  395  end,  and  496  m.  ;  283  m.,  307  beg.,  and  630  m.  ; 
and  593-5. 

*  pp.  88  m.,  282  end,  434  end,  462  beg.,  683  end  ;  cp.  also  p.  274-5. 
8  pp.  301  beg.,  31 1  m.,  313  end,  480  beg. 

*  pp.  451-2  (Cora,  on  1  Cor.  xiv,  19):  "Quid  aliud  auditur  in  monas- 
terijs,  in  collegijs,  in  templis  ferine"  omnibus,  quam  uocum  strepitus  ?  .  .  . 
Nunc  vulgus  quid  aliud  audit  quam  uoces  nihil  significantes,  81  talis 
est  fere  pronunciatio,  ut  nee  uoce9  exaudiantur,  sonitus  tantum  feriat." 

Rabelais,  some  years  later,  in  his  facetious  account  of  Pantagruel's 
visit  to  the  lie  Sonnante,  alluded  to  the  unintelligible  chanting  of  psalms 
in  Latin  by  monks  and  clergy — see  Fleury,  Rabelais,  II,  202-6. 


CENSURES  ON  ECCLESIASTICAL  ABUSES    179 

Church  was  well-nigh  at  an  end.1  Their  lives  also  lay 
peculiarly  open  to  many  sorts  of  temptation,  and  only 
too  frequently  they  exhibited  manifest  tokens  of 
their  frailty.  Accordingly,  the  reproofs  which  Erasmus 
meted  out  to  the  monks  and  friars  contained  a  mordant 
piquancy  that  was  absent  from  the  chiding  which  he 
administered  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  of  the  period. 
In  numerous  passages  he  blamed  the  regulars  for  their 
greed  and  rapacity ;  for  their  superstitious,  so-called 
religious  exercises  ;  for  their  evil  methods  of  recruiting 
their  orders  ;  for  their  empty,  worthless  sermons  ;  for 
their  claims  to  an  extraordinary  sanctity,  of  which  no 
visible  signs  existed ;  for  their  laziness  under  pretext 
of  religion  ;  for  the  absolute  hollowness  and  falsity  of 
their  "religion,"  in  the  meaning  they  attached  to  the 
word ;  and,  finally,  for  the  dishonourable  measures 
they  adopted  to  secure  legacies  and  bequests.2 

Not  the  least  remarkable  of  the  topics  which  Erasmus 
handled  with  candour  and  unreserve  was  the  Papacy  : 
the  authority,  privileges,  and  powers  attached  to  the 
office,  and  the  qualities  which  the  occupants  of  that  see 
ought  to  possess.  In  one  long  note  he  reviewed  various 
changes  made  by  popes  in  the  apostolic  precepts,  and 
propounded  the  exceedingly  pertinent  question,  "  Have 
they  erred  in  so  doing  ?  " — a  question  to  which  Erasmus 
appeared  inclined  to  deliver  a  conditionally  affirmative 
reply.  As  the  cases  cited  included  both  the  definition 
of  the  mode  of  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist, 
known  as  Transubstantiation,  and  the  power  of  grant- 
ing dispensations  in  matrimonial  causes,  it  will  be  seen 
how  daring  was  his  frankness.' 

But  the  gravest  sentence  he  pronounced  upon  the 

1  Antony  Meray,  in  his  extremely  interesting  little  work  Les  Libra 
Precheurs,  puts  the  final  date  of  their  active  influence  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  IV.    We  think  he  could  have  fixed  a  much  earlier  limit. 

1  In  Xov.  Test.  Annot.  (1527),  pp.  31,  33,  88,  89,  92,  152,  etc. 

*  pp.  423-32.  Erasmus,  it  is  true,  is  not  here  seeking  to  cast  odium  on 
the  papal  see,  but  his  condemnatory  opinions  are  none  the  less  powerful 
on  that  account. 


180  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

papal  claims  which  the  curialists  of  his  day  were 
putting  forth  forms  part  of  his  comment  Non  ad 
destructionem  on  2  Cor.  x,  8. 

This  passage  should  be  noted  by  those  who  exagger- 
ate inordinately  the  authority  of  the  Pontiff,  and 
maintain  that  the  whole  body  of  Christ's  Church  owes 
such  allegiance  to  this  one  man  that  if  he  were  to  draw 
all  souls  to  hell,  none  would  have  the  right  to  oppose 
him.  Paul  received  his  apostolic  authority  from 
Christ  Himself,  not  from  St.  Peter  .  .  .  and  yet  he 
nobly  confesses  that  it  was  conferred  upon  him  not  to 
injure  anyone  but  to  benefit.  And  it  would  be  well  if 
those  who  in  these  times  attribute  tremendous  powers 
to  the  Roman  Pontiff  were  able  also  to  attribute  to 
him  the  rest  of  the  pontifical  gifts,  such  as  wisdom, 
purity,  charity,  and  disregard  of  worldly  glory  and 
riches.' 

These  few  particulars  drawn  from  Erasmus's  most 
celebrated  work  will  perhaps  suffice  to  reveal  its  nature 
and  scope.  We  observe  that  it  was  no  part  of  his 
design  to  contest  the  dogmas,  or  discredit  the  authority, 
of  the  Church.  His  paramount  aim  was  to  commend  to 
the  Christian  public  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and,  because  these  constituted  the  written  word  of 
God,  to  restore  them  to  the  most  correct  form  possible, 
so  that  all  readers  might  feel  assured  that  they  had 
before  them  a  truly  reliable  narrative  of  the  actual 
utterances  and  teaching  of  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 
At  the  same  time,  it  is  also  quite  evident  that,  consciously 
or  unconsciously,  he  had  a  further  desire,  viz.,  to  set 
before  his  contemporaries  the  character  and  doctrines 
of  the  primitive  Church,  to  institute  comparisons 
between  the  teachers  and  clergy  of  his  own  day  and 
those  of  earlier  ages — in  short,  to  lead  back  the  Church 
to  ideals  of  thought  and  practice  more  accordant  with 
the  precepts  of  Christ,  her  Lord  and  Founder.  It  is 
quite   noticeable   that,    in   most   of   his   works,    both 

1  p.  494  m.  This  passage,  and  many  others  of  those  cited  above  are 
condemned  in  Quiroga's  Index  Expurgat.  (1601). 


VALUE  OF  ERASMUS'S   WORK  181 

serious  and  satirical,  in  his  Enchiridion,  Adagia,  and 
New  Testament,  as  well  as  in  his  Colloquies  and  Praise 
of  Folly,  he  appears  always  unable  to  repress  his  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  condition  of  Christianity  in  his 
day.  This,  however,  might  have  been  accounted  mere 
peevishness,  on  the  part  of  Erasmus,  if  there  were  not 
clear  indications  that  the  causes  of  it  lay  deeper,  and 
that  it  signified,  in  fact,  an  anxious  desire  to  do  some- 
thing to  rectify  what  he  considered  disordered.  So  far 
he  was  entirely  at  one  with  all  those  who  sought  to 
reform  the  Church  upon  Catholic  lines.  Fisher,  More, 
Colet,  Beatus  Rhenanus,  and  the  rest,  were  delighted 
at  the  production  of  the  New  Testament  and  its  Annota- 
tions, for  they  regarded  it  as  the  best  means  of  effecting 
a  Catholic  reformation.  Moreover,  some  of  those  who 
quarrelled  with  it  did  so  because  it  was  truly  this.  But 
not  all  of  them.  It  is  undoubtedly  surprising  to  observe 
that  both  Lefevre  and  Luther — in  those  early  days  of 
that  German  professor's  career  when  he  was  a  sincere 
Catholic  at  heart,  if  a  reformer  by  inclination — did 
not  accord  the  great  work  the  same  joyful  applause 
which  it  received  in  so  many  other  quarters.  There 
was  a  definite  reason  for  their  coldness,  which  it  is  not 
hard  for  us  to  elucidate.  Erasmus's  book,  in  their 
estimation,  went  far  beyond  the  limits  needed  for  the 
work  of  Catholic  reform.  He  himself  repeatedly  pro- 
tested that  he  had  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  Valla 
and  Lefevre,  and  he  spoke  truthfully.  But  he  had  sur- 
passed them.  Like  Lefevre,  he  was  an  expositor  of  the 
Bible,  and,  in  this  capacity,  he  excelled  the  Frenchman. 
He  was  also  a  textual  critic,  and  as  such  he  parted 
company  with  his  two  models,  for  he  not  only  went 
beyond  Lefevre,  but  pursued  so  closely  along  the  lines 
laid  down  by  Valla  that  eventually  he  outstripped  the 
Italian  humanist.  Thus  he  became,  in  actual  fact,  the 
founder  of  a  new  and  noble  art  that  has  discovered 
much  that  is  useful  and  true,  but  has,  nevertheless, 
sanctioned  some  audacious  extravagancies.    Tin  germs 


i82  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

of  these  two  modes  of  biblical  criticism  lay  hidden  in 
Erasmus's  great  production.  We  would  not  go  so  far  as 
M.  Durand  de  Laur  in  hinting  at  the  existence  of 
scepticism  in  the  mind  of  Erasmus  himself.1  Erasmus 
certainly  proceeded  in  his  criticism  with  the  freedom 
of  a  modern  German  textualist  ;  and,  therefore,  he 
comprehended  in  his  character  the  carping  insub- 
missiveness  of  a  fifteenth  century  humanist  and  the 
independence  of  a  present-day  Higher  Critic."  But  he 
always  opposed  the  assertions  of  those  who  charged 
him  with  want  of  deference  either  to  the  sacred  records 
or  to  constituted  authority,  and  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  that  he  was  sincere  in  his  defences.  His 
critics,  often  captious  and  unjust,  and  at  all  times 
dangerous  to  his  personal  safety,  nevertheless  pene- 
trated much  more  accurately  than  Erasmus  himself  to 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  one  part  of  his  labours.* 
Probably  to  no  pioneer  is  the  future  prophetically 
revealed,  and  Erasmus  was  nothing  else  than  an 
initiator.  It  is  quite  unfair  of  moderns  to  ascribe  to  him 
the  temerities  of  a  later  age,  to  which  indeed  he  opened 
the  way,  but  of  which  he  had  no  thought  of  being  the 
author. 

Peaceful  as  it  was,  1516  proved  to  be  an  eventful 
year.  Books  which  have  made  a  profound  impression 
upon  the  modern  world  issued  at  this  time  from  the 
press.  Their  number  was  not  great,  but  their  influence 
on  human  thought  has  not  yet  reached  finality.  Of 
these,  the  greatest,  Erasmus's  Novum  Instrnmentum, 
has  just  been  discussed.  This  was  followed  by  some 
other  works,  secondary,  no  doubt,  in  moral  rank  and 
authority,  but  still  of  unquestionable  importance  and 
value.  All  these  books,  even  when  they  treat  of 
different  topics,  possess  one  eminent  characteristic  in 

1  Erasme,  Precurseur  et  Iniriauur  de  /'  Esprit  Modcrnc,  Paris,  1S72,  II, 
284  :  "  Iirasme  ne  fut-il  pas  dans  une  certaine  mesure  le  precurseur  ct 
le  pere  du  scepticisme  moderne  f  " 

2 Ibid.,  II,  285. 

8  Ibid.,  II,  chap.  V,  especially  pp.  207-12. 


MORE'S   "UTOPIA"  183 

common.  They  concur  in  giving  expression  to  the  new 
ideas  and  thoughts  which  at  that  period  were  circulating 
among  the  learned  and  beginning  to  pass  from  them  into 
general  acceptance.  One  notable  work  of  this  date  was 
the  Utopia  of  Sir  Thomas  More.  Under  this  title  the 
ideal  commonwealth,  which  the  author  depicted  in  his 
treatise,  has  become  famous  ;  but  More  at  first  called 
it  Nusquama,  and  that  was  the  name  by  which  Erasmus, 
in  the  early  days  of  its  existence,  knew  it.  Before  the 
book,  however,  was  handed  to  the  printer,  the  title  was 
altered  to  Utopia  as  being  more  euphonious.  The 
first  edition  appeared  at  Louvain  in  November,  1516. 

Although  it  is  possible  to  find  traces  of  the  opinions 
of  Plato  and  Epicurus  in  the  work,1  for  the  most  part 
the  fiction  is  original. 

The  Utopia  is  composed  in  two  books,  and,  considering 
what  a  prolix  (even  tedious)  letter-writer  More  was,  the 
treatise  is  remarkably  concise  and  interesting  through- 
out. 

The  main  subjects  treated  of  in  the  first  book  em- 
bodied the  views  of  More  himself  regarding  the  state 
of  England  and  King  Henry's  policy,  but  he  delivered 
them  as  the  opinions  of  Raphael,  the  supposed  traveller 
who  had  visited  the  strange  land  called  Utopia.  During 
Cardinal  Morton's  time,  thieves  had  abounded  in 
England  because  large  numbers  of  soldiers  had  been 
disbanded,  retainers  cast  out  of  employment,  and  far- 
mers and  labourers  ejected  from  their  holdings  to  make 
room  for  sheep-runs.  To  have  provided  employment, 
restored  tillage-farming,  and  substituted  penal  labour 
for  hanging,  in  cases  of  theft,  would  have  been  a  more 
effectual  method  of  putting  down  robbery  than  the 
imposition    of   excessively   harsh   punishments.2     He 

1  Warner  (F.,  LL.D.),  Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  Sir  Thos.  More,  with  the 
History  of  Utopia,  London,  1758,  pp.  57,  65-6,  72  et  seq.,  132-4  ;  Thomae 
Mori,  etc.,  Lucubrationes  et  Vita,  Basil.,  1563,  pp.  34,  40-1,  45  et  seq., 
9 1  et  seq. 

8  Warner,  pp.  26-38  ;   Th.  Mori.  Luc,  pp.  13-20. 


184  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

declared  his  invincible  antipathy  to  the  expansion  of 
territorial  empire,1  all  tampering  with  the  currency, 
levying  war-taxes  when  no  war  was  in  contemplation, 
exacting  penalties  under  laws  long  obsolete,  granting 
licences  for  much  money  in  respect  of  things  prohibited, 
and  attaching  judges  to  the  royal  interest.2  He  main- 
tained that  a  king's  honour  and  safety  rests  more  upon 
his  people's  wealth  than  his  own  ;  that  it  were  far 
better  for  a  king  to  abdicate  than  to  retain  his  throne 
by  means  of  threats,  exactions,  confiscations,  or  his 
people's  impoverishment  ;  that  a  king  should  keep  his 
expenditure  within  his  income,  and  should  enact  good 
laws  of  a  kind  that  would  prevent  crime.3 

Though  the  second  book  is  an  imaginative  descrip- 
tion of  a  non-existent  race,  it  were  perhaps  best  to 
view  it  as  an  exhaustive  illustration  in  practice  of  the 
ideals  proposed  in  the  first  book.  That  it  constituted 
a  gentle  satire  on  the  European  practices  of  that  time 
is  quite  true,  but  we  doubt  if  More  intended  it  for  satire. 
Its  purpose  lies  too  deep,  its  doctrines  are  too  funda- 
mental, its  humanitarianism  too  benevolent  to  leave 
any  opportunity  for  lapsing  into  a  prolonged  satirical 
vein.  Here  and  there,  indeed,  the  subjects  dealt  with 
required  either  a  plainness  of  speech  which  More 
believed  would  not  be  agreeable  to  the  character  of  his 
work,  or  a  degree  of  irony  which  he  feared,  if  un- 
tempered,  would  imperil  the  beneficial  effect  he  desired 
to  accomplish.  Accordingly,  he  used  sarcasm  in  so 
gentle  a  manner  that  none  but  the  most  irritable  and 
suspicious  of  mankind  could  find  fault,  and  even  these 
would  experience  no  little  difficulty  in  explaining  their 
resentment  or  laying  claim  to  public  sympathy.* 

1  Warner,  pp.  60-1  ;    Th.  Moti.  Luc,  pp.  36-7. 

2  Warner,  pp.  62-5  ;    Th.  Mori.  Luc,  pp.  37-9. 
8  Warner,  pp.  66-9  ;    Th.  Mori.  Luc,  pp.  40-3. 

4  Warner,  p.  175  ;  Th.  Mori.  Luc,  p.  121.  Cp.  More's  words  with  those 
of  Erasmus — Op.,  II,  869-73  ("  Scarabeus  aquilam  quaerit  ").  On 
war  also  More,  Erasmus,  and  Colet  were  in  agreement — cp.  Warner,  p. 
177  ;   Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  123-4,  461  ;   Enchir.,  Can.  VI. 


MORE'S  PHILANTHROPY  185 

The  ideas  which  More  propounded  in  his  observations 
on  the  condition  of  life  of  the  labouring  classes  in  Eng- 
land, during  his  own  time,  were  unusually  courageous 
and  frank,  but  not  more  so  than  the  occasion  warranted. 
By  describing  the  constitutions  of  the  Utopians,  he 
condemned  the  extremely  long  hours  of  labour,  the 
comfortless  existence  and  unwholesome  mode  of  living, 
the  anxiety  for  the  future,  and  the  excessive  toil,  which 
formed  the  lot  of  the  servant,  the  mechanic,  and  the 
peasant  in  England.  He  thought  that  the  State  should 
endeavour  to  ameliorate  their  condition,1  and,  to  render 
this  feasible,  the  national  wealth  could  be  utilized. 
Official  duties  had  given  More  practical  experience  of  the 
topics  he  touched  upon  in  these  suggestions.  His 
advice,  consequently,  derived  all  the  greater  cogency 
from  the  contrast  he  instituted  between  the  wretched, 
sometimes  even  squalid,  mode  of  life  in  England,  and 
the  happy,  peaceful,  contented  existence  of  the 
Utopians. 

Much  of  what  More  hinted  at  has  been  the  subject  of 
consideration  during  the  centuries  which  have  elapsed 
since  he  wrote  his  curious  romance.  Some  ills  have  been 
mitigated,  and,  for  the  alleviation  of  others,  better 
methods  of  administration  have  been  established.  It 
cannot  be  thought  possible  that  More  himself  ever  in- 
tended it  to  be  taken  as  his  deliberate  opinion  that  the 
Utopian  ideals  ought  to  be,  down  to  the  smallest  detail, 
put  in  practice.2  Nevertheless,  every  age  will  readily 
acknowledge  that  the  part  of  the  Utopia  which  reflects 
most  honour  upon  him,  because  of  his  philanthropic 
instincts,  the  largeness  of  his  heart,  and  the  sagacity  of 
his  intellect,  is  that  division  of  the  second  book  in  which 

1  Warner,  pp.  223-4. 

2  Perhaps  this  is  what  More  means  by  these  words  which  occur  towards 
the  conclusion  of  the  Utopia  :  "  Though  it  must  be  confessed  that  he 
(Raphael)  is  both  a  very  learned  man,  and  a  person  who  has  obtained 
a  great  knowledge  of  the  world,  I  cannot  perfectly  agree  to  everything 
he  has  related." — Warner,  p.  229. 


186  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

he  portrayed  what  he  regarded  as  the  perfect  conditions 
of  human  existence. 

The  chief  topic  of  debate  in  the  moral  philosophy  of 
the  L'topians  More  stated  to  be  the  discussion  of 
"  happiness."  By  this  term  they  meant  the  pursuit  of 
pleasure  in  the  light  of  religion  and  reason.1  We 
cannot  but  think  that  More  was  here  seeking  to  ad- 
minister a  corrective  to  the  extravagances  of  religious 
asceticism  and  the  false  notions  of  religious  self-denial 
then  prevalent,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  iniquities 
of  selfishness  and  sin  on  the  other. 

Probably  to  no  part  of  More's  remarkable  production 
are  we  more  attracted  than  to  that  in  which  he  gave  an 
account  of  the  svstem,  or  rather  systems,  of  religion  in 
Utopia,  because  we  naturally  expect  to  find  there  some 
unusual  tokens  of  the  author's  genius  and  perhaps  some 
indications  of  his  opinions.  We  are  not  disappointed. 
The  treatise,  as  a  whole  far  from  ordinary,  unfolds  in 
this  division  its  most  singular  and  original  ideas.  One 
religious  tenet,  the  belief  in  a  Supreme  Being,  the 
Utopians  held  in  common,  however  much  they  might 
differ  in  other  particulars.2  All  sects  gathered  into  one 
vast  assembly  for  the  great  act  of  public  worship,  to 
join  together  in  prayers  of  thanks  to  Almighty  God 
which  were  suited  to  all.3  For  this  special  service  of 
God  no  images  of  an}-  kind  were  used,  nor  any  prayers 
save  those  which  would  be  acceptable  to  all.  Utopus, 
who  had  appointed  this  form  of  public  worship,  made 
these  regulations  in  order  to  emphasize  the  essential 
unity  of  the  commonwealth.*  At  the  same  time,  he  left 
even'  sect  at  liberty  to  practise  its  own  distinctive  rites 
and  to  exercise  its  own  peculiar  devotions  in  private. 
It  was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  Utopus  that  anyone 

1  Warner,  pp.  133-9  5    ^-  "<**■  L'xc.,  pp.  92-5. 

*  Warner,  pp.  : 

*  I otd.,  pp.  218-21. 

*Cp.   Eras.   Op..  Ill,   1:28c:    "  Quanto  1  entia, 

totum  orbem  Christianum  unam  domum,  et  velut  unum  habere  Monas- 
terium,  omnes  Cancmicoa  et  confratres  putare." 


RELIGION  IX  UTOPIA  :- 

should  be  punished  for  his  religious  opinions.  Ali  I  ere 
allowed  to  propagate  their  views  by  argument  and 
-  d,  but  any  attempt  to  use  other  means  was  liable 
to  banishment  on  the  ground  that  it  imperilled  the 
peace  and  good  order  of  the  commonwealth,  and  5 
detrimental  to  the  best  interests  of  religion.  Utopus 
had  held  that,  if  one  religion  and  one  only  were  true, 
its  own  truth,  its  own  genuineness,  would  ultimately 
prevail,  provided  that  quiet  persuasion  and  the  inter- 
change of  ideas  were  the  only  methods  adopted  for 
advancing  it.1  Accordingly,  even  atheis:?  were  tolerated 
in  Utopia,  though  never  entrusted  with  any  public 
office.1 

The  Utopian  priesthood  was  not  the  least  strange 
appointment  in  that  imaginary  society.  The  priests 
were  few  in  number,  thirteen  altogether,  with  one  as 
head  over  the  rest.  It  was  possible  for  a  woman  to  be 
a  "  priest  "  ;  but  that  happened  very  seldom,  and  only 
an  elderly  woman  was  ever  chosen  to  that  office.  They 
were  elected  "  as  other  magistrates  were."  by  the  s 
suffrage  of  the  people.  Their  duties  included  the  con- 
duct of  public  worship,  the  inspection  of  public  morals, 
and  the  supervision  of  education.'  Great  honour  was 
paid  to  them,  but,  being  men  of  eminent  piety,  they 
merited  it.*  More  represented  Raphael  as  explaining 
how  he  and  his  companions  introduced  Christianity 
into  Utopia,  in  consequence  of  which  a  question  arose 
among  that  people  whether  they  could  not  elect  the 
Christian  priesthood  in  the  same  way  ;.s  the  Utopian, 
and  make  valid  appointments  without  any  further 
authority  being  consulted,5  *'  and  they  seemed  to  be 
resolved  to  choose  some  for  that  employment;  but 
they  had  not  done  it  when  I  left." 

Among  this  curious  race,  those  who  from  a  reru 
motive   undertook   disagreeable   and   laV  s    tasks 

were  accorded  a  special  degree  of  respect    To  certain 

1  Warner,  pp.  io'-;^ I.  'ill  *  lb 

'  -4.  '  -  > 


188  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

others,  who,  on  similar  grounds,  abstained  from  the 
married  state  and  lived  an  ascetic  life,  was  given  a  high 
measure  of  esteem,  and  their  celibacy  was  regarded  as 
the  holier  condition.  But,  for  all  that,  the  Utopians 
considered  that  the  persons  who  married  and  fulfilled 
the  ordinary  duties,  and  enjoyed  the  simple  pleasures 
of  life,  were  the  wiser  sort.1 

Such  is  a  brief  analysis  of  a  book  which  would  have 
been  noteworthy  at  any  time,  but  its  public  appearance 
immediately  after  the  Novum  Instrumentum,  by  con- 
necting it  with  that  great  work,  enhanced  its  intrinsic 
value.  And,  indeed,  we  cannot  fail  to  notice  that, 
whilst  Erasmus's  important  production  was  calculated 
to  satisfy,  in  a  large  degree,  the  spirit  of  thoughtful 
inquiry  which  was  manifesting  itself  throughout 
western  Christendom,  More's  serious  romance  had  a 
department  of  its  own  in  the  task  of  ministering  to  the 
requirements  of  the  age.  For  the  deshe,  with  which 
he  ended  his  book,  did  not  remain  peculiar  to  himself ; 
he  merely  uttered  a  pious  aspiration  concerning  what 
many  of  his  contemporaries  soon  began  to  deliberate 
of  their  own  accord2: — 

However,  there  are  many  things  in  the  common- 
wealth of  Utopia,  that  I  rather  wish,  than  expect,  to 
see  followed  in  our  Governments. 

It  is  manifest  that  a  deeply  benevolent  regard  for  the 
temporal  and  eternal  welfare  of  his  fellow-men  urged 
More  to  compose  this  work.  We  cannot  avoid  observing 
that  the  History  of  Utopia  had  in  view  a  fundamental 
object  which  was,  in  the  purest  sense,  philanthropic. 
The  Praise  of  Folly  had  sought  to  combat  the  evils  of 
the  times  by  ridicule,  the  Letters  of  the  Obscure  Men  by 
sarcasm.  Erasmus's  New  Testament,  on  the  contrary, 
had  gone  forth,  in  the  restorative  power  of  the  Gospel 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  207-8. 

2  TA.  Mori.  Luc,  p.  159:  "  Ita  facile  confiteor,  permulta  esse  in 
Ytopiensium  republica,  quae  in  nostris  ciuitatibus  optarim  uerius,  quam 
sperarim." 


THE  "INSTITUTIO"  OF   ERASMUS       189 

of  Christ,  to  teach  and  correct,  to  edify  and  renovate. 
On  this  noble  mission,  it  was  worthily  followed  by  the 
Utopia,  a  book  distinctly  counselling,  by  means  of  its 
suggestions,  integrity  in  eveiyday  life,  sincerity  in  faith, 
and  purity  in  religion.  Here  were  to  be  found  no 
mockery  at  the  low  state  of  contemporary  morality, 
no  jibes  at  the  numerous  failures  from  the  Christian 
standard,  but  a  sorrowful  pity  that  such  things  should 
be,  and  an  anxious  longing  for  their  future  betterment. 

With  a  somewhat  similar  intention,  Erasmus,  about 
the  middle  of  1516,  produced  his  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Prince}  The  treatise,  which  he  addressed  in 
the  first  instance  to  Prince  Charles,  lately  become  a 
powerful  monarch  by  the  decease  of  his  grandfather 
Ferdinand,  presented  to  all  Christian  princes  the  highest 
ideal  of  a  ruler  who  lived,  not  for  his  own  benefit,  but 
for  the  good  of  his  people.2 

A  close  connection  in  ideas  and  opinions  is  observable 
between  the  Institutio  of  Erasmus  and  the  Utopia  of 
Thomas  More,  a  connection  which  will  become  still 
more  evident,  if  it  be  remembered  that  the  former  book 
was  begun  at  a  time  when  the  two  authors  had  frequent 
intercourse,3  and,  in  all  probability,  no  little  debate  on 
the  matters  treated  of  in  both  of  these  publications. 
The  Utopia,  subsequent  to  the  Institutio  in  time  of 
composition,  expressed  similar  thoughts,  but  differed 
from  that  work  in  its  purpose,  and  therefore  in  its 
entire  character.  Erasmus's  treatise  exhibited  abstract 
principles  of  action  suitable  for  the  guidance  of  every 
Christian  prince  and  the   information  of  all  Christian 

1  The  Institutio  Principis  Christiani  was  published  in  August,  15 16, 
the  History  of  Utopia  in  November,  both  at  Louvain. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  IV,  567E  :  "  Non  alio  officio  potes  magis  tibi  conciliare 
Deum,  quam  si  populo  salutarem  praestes  Principem."  Erasmus  added, 
ibid.,  579B,  d,  and  61  2a,  that  to  govern  as  a  Christian  monarch,  far  from 
lessening,  would  increase  the  power  of  authority  and  place  it  upon  secure 
foundations. 

3  See  the  ep.  to  Cardinal  Grimani,  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  144A  :  "Est  in 
manibus  libellus  de  instituendo  Principe,  quern  illustrissimo  Carolo 
Archiduci  Burgundiae,  Maximiliani  nepoti,  destinavimus." 


igo  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

subjects.  From  the  nature  of  its  advice,  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  that  advice  was  imparted,  the  Instiiutio 
was  only  acceptable  to  the  thoughtful  and  the  learned. 
More's  book  delivered  the  same  message  to  Christian 
Europe,  but,  as  it  dealt  chiefly  with  the  actual  facts  of 
life  in  England,  it  laid  down  practical  principles,  or 
rather,  reduced  the  abstract  principles  of  Erasmus  to 
the  everyday  requirementr  of  life  in  a  Christian  state, 
and  clothed  all  in  the  attractive  garb  of  fiction.  For 
these  reasons,  the  Utopia  attained  an  immediate  fame 
it  has  never  lost.  Thousands  have  read  it,  and  possibly 
generations  still  to  come  will  read  it,  with  avidity.  It 
touches,  and  that  shrewdly,  upon  so  many  of  the 
profound  issues  of  national  and  ecclesiastical  polity, 
of  the  reciprocal  benefits  which  accrue  to  all  men  when 
the  relations  between  them  are  rightly  adjusted,  that 
it  will  never  reach  an  age  when  its  admonitions  will  be 
obsolete.  Besides,  More  has  displayed  his  opinions  in 
such  unassuming  and  engaging  forms  that  even  those 
of  his  own  time  who  might  have  had  some  reason  to 
believe  themselves  or  their  office  assailed,  could  not 
feel  much  resentment  or  avow  serious  injury.  The 
popularity  of  the  Utopia  is,  therefore,  not  inexplicable. 
Very  different  was  the  fate  of  Erasmus's  book.  Its 
serious  tone,  its  erudite  form,  its  direct  enunciations  of 
principles — honourable  and  Christian,  but  little  in 
accordance  with  the  usages  of  the  peiiod — rendered  it 
dull  and  tedious,  and  consequently  conspired  to  make 
its  popularity  impossible.  In  fact,  it  is  probable  that 
even  the  prince  to  whom  it  was  dedicated  (Charles  V) 
never  read  it.1 

Perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  no  books  of 
that  epoch  have  been  so  modern  in  thought  and  teach- 
ing as  the  two  just  mentioned.     Most  of  the  others 

1  See  Villari,  Machiavelli,  bk.  II,  chap.  V.  De  Laur,  II,  460  et  seq., 
gives  an  excellent  summary  of  Machiavelli's  doctrines,  which  differed  so 
widely  from  both  More's  and  Erasmus's,  but  proved  more  attractive  to 
Charles. 


BENEVOLENCE  OF  ERASMUS  AND  MORE  191 

retain  an  antiquarian  or  historical  interest  and  value. 
Just  a  few,  such  as  the  Praise  of  Folly  and  the  Letters 
of  the  Obscure  Men,  may  be  shown  to  reflect  traits  of 
human  nature  common  in  our  times.  And  all  the  best 
parts  of  Erasmus's  biblical  labours,  of  Lefevre's  exegesis, 
of  Colet's  instructions,  have  long  since  been  absorbed 
into  the  broadening  stream  of  theological  learning. 
But  the  doctrines  of  these  two  treatises  on  the  govern- 
ance of  Christian  states,  conceived  as  they  were  in  the 
spirit  of  liberal  and  enlightened  Christianity,  still  enter 
into  the  dreams  of  the  modern  philanthropic  statesman. 
Our  latest  generations  have  witnessed  many  highly 
commendable  changes  in  the  mode  of  life  of  the  poorer 
classes — better  house  accommodation,  improved  sanita- 
tion, more  humane  provision  for  the  sick,  the  needy, 
and  the  aged,  amelioration  of  the  conditions  and  hours 
of  labour,  and  so  on.  Within  the  same  recent  period 
have  taken  place  the  abatement  of  religious  intolerance, 
and  the  encouragement  of  a  much  more  salutary  phase 
of  religious  thought  among  the  Churches,  viz.,  the 
desire  of  corporate  reunion  as  a  means  of  fulfilling  the 
prayer  which  the  Saviour  uttered  before  His  Passion  ; 
the  efforts  to  establish  tribunals  of  arbitration  for  all 
kinds  of  disputes,  national  and  international ;  the 
attainment,  in  a  large  degree,  of  the  proper  relations 
between  rulers  and  their  subjects.  These  advancements 
in  fraternal  kindliness  and  goodwill  are  outlined  in 
the  Institutio  and  the  Utopia,  although  the  modern 
advocates  of  public  philanthropy  may  not  be  aware  of 
this.  But  we  must  also  note,  that  the  socialistic  reformer 
and  the  promoter  of  communism  will  find  in  the  Utopia 
the  major  portion  of  their  theories.  Observe,  therefore, 
how  entirely  modern,  or  at  least  how  consonant  with 
modern  ideas,  are  the  teachings  which  Erasmus  and 
More  set  forth  in  the  two  notable  works  published  by 
them  in  1516.1 

1  Nisard,  pp.  178-9:    "  L'Utopie,  c'est  cet  ideal  du  bien  absolu  que 
caressent  a  toute9  lea  epoques  certains  esprits  honniteg  ou  impatient!, 


192  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

Bude"  had,  in  March,  1515,  produced  a  great  book 
in  which  were  included  the  aspirations  of  the  Humanist, 
the  Patriot,  and  the  Christian.  As  its  title,  De  Asse, 
indicates,  it  purported  to  be  a  treatise  on  the  value  of 
money  in  ancient  Rome  and  Greece.  Many  of  Bude's 
decisions  on  ancient  money-values  have  been  revised 
or  exploded,  and  his  book  as  a  scientific  work  has  shared 
the  fate  of  all  pioneer  labours.1  Its  historical  import- 
ance yet  remains,  and  to  this  must  be  assigned  a  high 
appraisement.  That  very  portion  of  the  book,  its 
lengthy  digressions,  which,  at  the  date  of  its  issue, 
detracted  from  its  eminence  as  a  scientific  publication, 
is  now  the  only  part  which  maintains,  and  will  ever 
maintain,  a  real  interest  for  modern  students.  These 
fall  into  three  divisions.2  In  the  first,  he  defends  the 
cause  of  humanism,  and  censures  the  indifference  or 
hostility  of  the  French  nobles  and  clergy  towards  the 
study  of  ancient  literature.  In  the  second,  he  propounds 
the  claim  of  Frenchmen  to  be  considered  no  less  capable 
of  attaining  a  high  level  of  literary  culture  than  the 
Italians,  a  claim  which  found  its  earlier  justification  in 
his  own  erudition  and  that  of  several  of  his  contempo- 
raries, and  its  later  in  the  glories  of  Dolet,3  du  Bellay, 
and  the  school  of  Ronsard.4  The  third  division  con- 
tains his  observations,  at  once  Catholic  and  liberal, 
upon  the  prevalent  state  of  religion.  Here,  once  more, 
the  impatience  which  men  profoundly  devout  felt  at 
the  blemishes  of  the  existing  systems  of  doctrine  and 
practice  in  the  ecclesiastical  world,  reveals  itself.    When 

qui  ne  savent  pas  voir  le  bien  relatif  dans  lc  mondc  ou  ils  vivent."     See 
also  ibid.,  p.  185. 

1  Delaruelle,  Guillaume  Bude,  pp.  156-7. 

2  The  particulars  here  given  regarding  the  De  Asse  and  the  quotations 
from  it  are  taken  from  chapters  V  and  VI  of  Delaruelle's  Bude.  The 
De  Asse  appears  on  Quiroga's  Index  Expurgat.  (1601). 

3  Boulmier  (Joseph),  Estienne  Dolet,  sa  vie,  ses  ceuvres,  son  martyre, 
Paris,  1857,  chap.  XI,  p.  175  et  seq. 

*  Darmesteter  &  Hatzfeld,  Le  Seizieme  Siecle  en  France,  jme.  £dit., 
Paris,  s.  a.,  sect.  II,  chap.  II,  pp.  96-146. 


BUDfi'S  "DE  ASSE"  193 

he  had  condemned  in  detail  the  idleness,  luxury, 
ostentation,  and  avarice  of  the  clergy,  and  had  exposed 
the  evils  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts  and  the  repre- 
hensible practice  of  granting,  to  such  as  were  ready  to 
pay  well,  facilities  for  obtaining  indulgences  for  their 
faults  and  immunities  from  the  penalties  imposed  by 
the  laws  of  the  Church,1  Bude  proceeded  to  utter 
warnings  which  the  events  of  a  few  years  later  showed 
to  have  been  prophetic.  He  pleaded  earnestly  for  a 
general  improvement  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  but  was 
opposed  to  the  employment  of  drastic  measures,  because 
he  believed  they  were  unsuited  to  the  times.2  Yet  he 
fully  recognized  the  urgent  necessity  of  reform,  for  no 
one  more  clearly  expressed  in  regard  to  that  matter  the 
views  of  the  thoughtful  among  western  Christians  of  the 
age.3 

"  He  speaks  with  piety  of  pious  things,  and  the  liveli- 
ness of  his  critical  genius  never  does  violence  to  the 
fervour  of  his  religious  beliefs."*  What  has  thus  been 
well  said  concerning  Bude  could  have  been,  no  less 
justly,  asserted  of  one  who  had  impressed  with  his  own 
devout  and  conservative  Christian  hopes  and  longings 
the  minds  of  all  with  whom  he  came  in  touch.  Perhaps, 
too,  it  was  from  the  influence  of  Lefevre  d' Staples, 
humanly  speaking,  that  Guillaume  Bude  derived  that 
other  noble  characteristic  which,  issuing  from  the  heart 
of  the  humanist,  ended  by  dominating  all  his  faculties, 
namely,  his  unwavering  loyalty  to  the  Christian  faith. 
For  his  was  an  era  in  which  the  cultivators  of  antiquity 
too  often  blended  their  Christianity  with  the  long- 

1  De  Asse,  p.  727. 

z  Ibid.,  p.  721  :  "  Duntaxat  quantum  ferre  ratio  huius  aetatis  potest, 
neque  enim  ad  uiuum  ulcera  in  corpore  tam  delicato  resecanda  censeo." 

3  Ibia.,  p.  718  and  728  :  "  Sed  enim  (quod  dicere  coeperamus)  status 
ciuitatis  orthodoxae  e  sede  seueritatis  et  disciplinae  conuulsus  manum 
quandam  Paeoniam  (that  is,  a  physician's  hand)  poscit,  ut  apte  et  placide 
in  earn  reponatur,  luxataque  ecclesiae  membra  in  artus  suos  aliquando 
redeant." 

4  Delaruelle,  pp.  188-9. 


194  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

forgotten  paganism  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  mytholo- 
gies,  and  so  enveloped  all  Christian  things  in  a  classic 
garb  as  to  impair  their  fidelity  to  the  religious  system 
of  their  childhood  and  to  widen  the  breach  already 
made  by  their  detractors  between  literary  culture  and 
religion.  It  was  of  inestimable  value,  at  such  a  juncture, 
that  Bude  should  have  demonstrated,  in  his  own  person, 
the  perfect  amity  which  subsists  eternally  between 
Christian  piety  and  all  true  knowledge,  and  the  benefits 
which  these  reciprocate.  Here,  within  the  pages  of  an 
avowedly  humanistic  work,  the  standard  of  moral 
teaching  is  not  derived  from  the  stores  of  classic 
examples,  but  from  the  doctrines  of  the  Lord  Jesus.1 
If  Bud6  proclaimed  the  inability  of  the  pagan  philoso- 
phers to  attain  to  wisdom,  he  based  his  statement  on 
their  ignorance  that  God  alone  is  the  dispenser  of  it.' 
When  he  wished  to  indicate  the  source  of  the  highest 
type  of  wisdom,  he  pointed  not  to  the  works  of  Aristotle, 
Plato,  or  Seneca,  or  to  the  relics  of  any  of  the  old  sages, 
but  to  the  pages  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  fundamental  ideals  of  Bude\  the  conceptions 
which  prompted  him  to  find  fault  with  the  irregularities 
of  the  Church,  and  to  demand  the  reconstruction  and 
reanimation  of  the  life  of  piety,  are  adequately  described 
in  these  words  of  his  biographer  :■ — 

The  philosophy  of  which  Bude  speaks  is,  as  one  can 
easily  see,  religious  knowledge,  or  indeed  theology,  in 
the  original  signification  of  the  word.  So  philology 
points  the  way  to  theology  ;  intercourse  with  divine 
things  is  the  natural  complement,  and,  as  it  were,  the 

1  See,  for  instance,  De  Asse,  p.  713. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  737  :  "  Existimabant  enim  non  ex  deo  sed  ex  sese  ita  aptum 
sapientem  esse,  ut  in  eo  plane  situm  esset  an  ipse  talis  esset.  Nos  autem 
ex  sacris  monumentis  accepimus  arbitrium  tantum  nostri  iuris  esse, 
rectam  autem  firmamque  animi  constitutionera  muneris  esse  diuini,  sed 
ita  promiscui,  ut  nulli  recte  atque  ordine  id  petenti  negetur."  Of  this 
passage  Dr.  Delaruelle  (p.  193)  very  truly  remarks  :  "  C'est  ici  la  pure 
doctrine  chretienne  de  la  grace." 

8  Delaruelle,  pp.  194-^ 


THE  DIGRESSIONS  OF  BUD£  195 

crown  of  what  Bude  terms  "  the  encyclopaedia  "  ;  and 
the  human  mind,  rising  from  height  to  height, 
advances  freely  from  pagan  to  Christian  wisdom. 
.  .  .  Perhaps,  in  order  to  be  quite  fair  (i.e.,  to  Bude^s 
theory),  one  must  recollect  the  miserable  state  of  decay 
into  which  theological  studies  had  then  fallen.  The 
renascence  of  ancient  learning  had  the  power  to  revive 
the  senile  organism  of  scholastic  philosophy ;  the 
knowledge  of  Greek  was  able  to  recall  the  doctors  to 
the  direct  study  of  the  sources  of  religion.  At  least 
this  is  that  for  which  Bude  hoped. 

But,  indeed,  that  French  savant  had  already  advanced 
far  beyond  mere  hopes,  for,  in  his  earlier  work,  the 
Annotations  to  the  Pandects,  he  had  inserted  a  digression 
in  which  he  urged  the  necessity  of  a  collation  of  the 
text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  with  the  original  Greek,  and 
condemned  the  present  insensate  opposition  to  such 
an  indispensable  necessity.1 

We  observe  in  the  books  published  during  15 15-16, 
of  which  some  particulars  have  been  given  above,  a 
mingling  of  the  religious  questions  of  the  day  with  the 
political  and  economic.  Such  a  combination  might 
have  proved  incongruous,  if  these  varied  subjects  of 
discussion  had  not  possessed  a  social  side  of  no  little 
importance,  which  precluded  the  possibility  of  repre- 
senting them  as  the  concern  of  individuals  only. 
Society,  indeed,  has  peculiar  interests  of  its  own  which 
belong  to  it  as  a  corporate  entity.  Every  problem  that 
arises,  in  relation  to  the  conditions  of  man's  present 
existence,  exhibits  not  only  personal  but  public  aspects. 
No  doubt,  the  advantage  of  the  individual  may  be  so 
emphasized  as  to  cause  serious  detriment  to  the  general 
good  ;  and  this  circumstance,  whenever  and  wherever 
it  occurs,  is  always  regrettable,  because  its  ultimate 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  1 17-8.  The  passage  in  question  (  Annotationes  in  Pandectas, 
p.  150)  has  reference  to  an  opening  verse  in  St.  Luke  x,  where  a  devia- 
tion of  the  Latin  version  from  the  sense  of  the  original  becomes  the  occa- 
sion of  an  energetic  protest  by  Bude  against  the  foolish  ignorance  of  the 
obscurantists. 


196  LITERARY   ACTIVITIES 

effect  is  to  disconnect  the  manifold  departments  of 
human  energy  and  thus  render  impossible  corporate 
action  and  progress.  In  every  case  of  the  kind,  the  loss 
which  the  social  being  has  to  bear  far  outweighs  the 
gain  which  the  individual  has  obtained ;  all  true 
expansion  and  growth,  terrestrial  as  well  as  celestial, 
proceeds,  by  ordinance  of  the  Almighty,  upon  general 
or  corporate,  not  upon  particular  or  individual  lines. 
Where  the  external  (or  social)  life  of  man  is  in  question, 
religion,  economics,  and  politics  are  not  to  be  deemed 
mutually  exclusive  ;  they  are,  in  truth,  co-operative. 
At  the  time  when  Erasmus,  More,  and  Bude  wrote 
their  books,  reform  was  a  subject  of  geneial  considera- 
tion ;  not  reform  in  spiritual  matters  only,  but  in 
secular  also.  The  mercantile,  legal,  military,  medical, 
executive,  and  religious  departments,  all  of  them  affect- 
ing the  welfare  of  society,  were  manifestly  defective. 
Disorder  had  entered  into  Church  and  State  alike,  and, 
in  the  search  for  nobler  ideals  of  both,  the  serious 
thinkers  of  the  age  had  gone  back  to  primitive  times.1 

1  Remark  the  following  words  taken  from  the  prefatory  epistle  which 
Erasmus  affixed  to  his  edition  of  Suetonius  (dated  by  Allen,  II,  579,  5th 
June,  1 5 17),  and  addressed  to  the  two  Dukes  of  Saxony,  Frederick  and 
George  :  "  Verus  &  unicus  orbis  Monarcha  Christus  est,  in  cuius  edicta  si 
nostri  Principes  consenserint,  sub  uno  Principe  vere  florebunt  universa." 
— Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  328c.  One  is  reminded  of  Savonarola's  "  King  of 
Florence." 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  LUTHER 

The  popularity  which  Reuchlin  had  found  somewhat 
embarrassing  fell  to  Martin  Luther,  and  was  welcomed 
by  him  at  a  critical  juncture  in  his  life.  There  were, 
undoubtedly,  fundamental  differences  between  the  two 
as  regarded  both  their  dispositions  and  their  careers. 
One  had  been  brought  up  under  the  shadow  of  a  court 
and  attached  to  the  services  of  noblemen  from  very 
early  years.  Reuchlin,  in  fact,  represented  the  cultured 
Christian  layman,  the  advocate,  and  the  courtier. 
Luther,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  child  of  the  people  ;x 
he  belonged  to  them  and  understood  them.  He  had  had 
no  previous  acquaintance  with  the  great  ones  of  his 
country,  when  he  stood,  an  abashed  theologian,  with  a 
nervous  smile  upon  his  face,  before  the  Emperor  and 
the  princes  of  the  Diet  at  Worms.  Moreover,  the  con- 
tests in  which  they  became  involved  were  dissimilar  in 
scope  and  object  ;  that  of  Reuchlin  concerned  the 
freedom  of  scholarship,  that  of  Luther  was  essentially 
(unquestionably  so  at  its  inception,  whatever  may  be 
thought  of  its  later  developments)  one  of  religious 
principle.  The  German  public,  already  favourably 
inclined  to  Reuchlin,  although  he  was  fighting  the 
battle  of  learned  Germans  only,  ranged  up  enthusiasti- 

1  Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  I,  49.  Among  the  humanists  of  Erfurt, 
Luther  classed  himself  as  "  rusticus  iste  Coridon,  Martinus,  inquam, 
barbarus,  et  semper  inter  anseres  slrepere  solitus."  See  his  ep.  to  Con- 
radus  Mutianus,  29th  May.  1516,  in  Luthcri  Epistolae  (Jhenae),  fol.  i6vo., 
and  De  Wette,  I,  ai-a. 

•97 


198         THE   BEGINNINGS   OF  LUTHER 

cally  on  the  side  of  Luther  when  it  perceived  that  he  was 
defending  not  merely  the  opinions  or  the  rights  of  one 
or  more  classes  of  his  countrymen,  but  what  appeared 
to  be  the  interests  of  all.  There  was,  therefore,  nothing 
singular  in  the  circumstance  which  Aleander  discovered 
at  Worms,  namely,  that  Germany  was  "  a  land  where 
every  stone  and  every  tree  cried  out,  Luther,"1  where 
the  simple  monk  of  Wittemberg  had  more  real  power 
than  the  Emperor  himself.* 

This  remarkable  man  was  born  at  Eisleben  in  1483, 
brought  up  in  Mansfeld,  and  educated  as  a  poor  scholar 
at  Eisenach  for  three  years.  At  the  age  of  18,  Luther 
entered  the  University  of  Erfurt,  intending  to  adopt  the 
profession  of  a  lawyer.  Here  he  proceeded  in  regular 
course  to  his  M.A.  degree  (1505),  and  was  about  to 
begin  the  serious  study  of  Law,  when,  to  the  amazement 
of  his  friends  and  the  displeasure  of  his  father,  he 
suddenly  joined  the  order  of  Augustinian  Eremites  in 
Erfurt  (summer  of  1505).  Although  much  has  been 
written  upon  the  subject,  and  many  conjectures,  more 
or  less  plausible,  have  been  advanced,  the  motive  which 
prompted  him  to  take  this  momentous  step  in  his 
career  is  not  well  understood.  It  does  not  accord  with 
our  present  purpose  to  examine  closely  into  the  reasons 
for  Luther's  action.  Let  it  suffice  to  remark  that 
apparently  there  were  two  causes  for  his  adopting  a 
course  all  the  circumstances  of  which  prove  it  to  have 
been  unpremeditated.  One  was  the  intensity  of  his 
religious  convictions.  Severe  lessons  of  piety  had  been 
taught  him  in  childhood  ;  and,  consequently,  he  had 
grown  up  in  possession  solely  of  austere  views  of  reli- 
gion and  its  duties.  It  was  natural  to  him,  therefore, 
to  regard  Divine  Justice  as  altogether  stern  and 
inexorable.  Profoundly  conscious  of  the  gravity  of 
the  issues  at  stake  where  the  soul  of  man  is  concerned, 
and  doubting  of  his  ability  to  accomplish  the  work  of 

1  Lindsay,  Hist,  of  Reformation,  I,  262-3. 
1  Armstrong,  Charles  J',  I,  67-73. 


LUTHER  AT  ERFURT  199 

his  soul's  salvation  in  the  world,1  he  felt  drawn,  as  did 
Thomas  More  about  the  same  time  in  England,  towards 
the  life  of  the  cloister  as  the  only  solution  of  the  spiritual 
difficulty.  The  other  was  the  sudden  death  of  a  com- 
panion. By  its  unexpectedness  and  awfulness  this 
event  exerted  a  powerful  influence  over  Luther  and 
urged  him  to  perform  that  which  his  inclination  had 
long  suggested.3  If  these  two  causes  be  well  considered 
it  will  be  seen  how  they  fit  together  and  explain  every- 
thing. 

Luther's  later  history  shows  that  the  few  years  of  his 
residence  in  the  convent  at  Erfurt  were  fruitful  in  results 
for  the  development  of  his  thought.  It  is  true  that, 
during  his  course  at  the  University,  he  had  met  most 
of  those  humanists  who  formed  the  Mutianic  fraternity.8 
As  he  had  himself  made  considerable  progress  in  the 
Latin  classical  authors,  he  was  sufficiently  learned  to 
appreciate  the  profound  knowledge  of  the  liter ae 
humaniores  which  so  many  of  his  contemporaries  had 
acquired.  But  at  no  time,  either  then  or  afterwards, 
could  he  have  been  reckoned  a  humanist ;  his  type  of 
intellect  was  certainly  not  humanistic.  Knowledge  of 
every  kind  he  valued,  not  indeed  for  its  own  sake,  but 
because  it  was  capable  of  serving  the  interests  of  reli- 
gion and  leading  to  a  clearer  comprehension  of  man's 
relation  to  God.  Accordingly,  whilst  he  was  wrestling 
with  the  consciousness  of  sin,  during  those  early  days 
of  his  conventual  life,  the  books  which  he  studied  had 
nothing  to  do  with  humanism  ;  they  were,  in  fact,  only 
those  that  appeared  useful  for  the  solution  of  the 
spiritual  problem  which  was  ever  present  with  him. 
His  preceptor,  John  Nathin,  of  Neuenkircke,  directed 
him  to  read  the  works  of  Occam  and  d'Ailly,4  but 
Staupitz,  the  Vicar-General  of  the  order,  advised  him 
to  resume  his  biblical  studies.    At  length,  the  soul  of 

1  Luther,  in  later  years,  gave  as  his  reason  for  entering  the  convent 
that  "  he  doubted  of  himself." — Lindsav,  I,  197. 

2  Kostlin,  I,  58-9.  8  Ibid.,  I,  48-50.  «  Ibid.,  I,  66  et  seq. 


200        THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

the  young  monk  found  peace  in  his  reading  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  ;*  his  spiritual  difficulties  vanished,  and 
he  was  able  to  return,  with  a  quickened  interest,  to  the 
study  of  theological  works  such  as  those  of  St.  Bernard 
and  speculative  works  such  as  those  of  Gerson.1 
Throughout  his  subsequent  career  Luther  never  wholly 
lost  the  impressions  which  he  received  from  the  books 
that  he  read  at  this  period.  The  teachings  of  the  great 
Parisian  chancellor,  accentuated  as  they  were,  in 
Luther's  case,  by  a  study  of  Tauler's  works,  were  calcu- 
lated to  influence  profoundly  the  mental  outlook  of  a 
sincere  and  devout  man ;  indeed,  the  person  who  imbibed 
them  could  never  again  view  unconcernedly  acts  and 
things,  however  harmless  or  indifferent  in  themselves, 
which  lay  under  suspicion  of  being  founded  upon  false 
principles.* 

On  the  nomination  of  Staupitz,  Luther  was  invited, 
in  1508,  to  take  up  the  work  of  teaching  in  the  University 
of  Wittemberg.  At  first  he  lectured  on  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy,  but  afterwards  on  theology,  a  subject  much 
more  congenial  to  him.  So  busily  occupied  was  he 
with  his  prelections  and  his  studies  of  the  Bible,  St. 
Augustine,  and,  later  on,  Tauler's  theology  and  sermons 
(which  he  ranked  next  in  value  to  the  Bible  and  the 
writings  of  the  great  Bishop  of  Hippo),*  that  the  years 
passed  swiftly  for  him  in  the  small  town  of  Electoral 
Saxony.  But  before  he  reached  his  "  taulerschen 
studien,"  that  is  to  say,  during  the  latter  part  of  1511 

1  Lindsay,  I,  203-4. 

1  Kostlin,  I,  81  et  seq. 

3  For  Occam,  consult  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the  Christian  Ch.,  VII,  94-5, 
102-4,  etc-  5  Milman  (Dean  H.  H.),  Hist,  of  Latin  Christianity,  London, 
1872,  IX,  146-8.  For  d'Ailly,  see  Creighton,  Hist,  of  the  Papacy.  I, 
317-S  ;  Bonnechose  (E.  de),  Jean  Hus,  Gerson,  et  le  Concilede  Constance, 
Paris,  i860,  I,  222-4  ;  Lenfant  (Jaques),  Hist,  du  Concile  de  Constance, 
Amsterdam,  1727,  I,  69  et  seq.,  589  et  seq.,  etc.  The  most  distinctive  of 
Lutheran  doctrines,  that  of  Consubstantiation,  appears  to  be  traceable 
to  Occam's  influence  over  the  mind  of  Luther — see  Robertson,  Hist, 
of  the  Chtn.  Ch.,  VII,  494. 

♦Kostlin,  I,  118. 


LUTHER  AND  GERMAN  HUMANISM    201 

and  the  beginning  of  1512,  he  had  accomplished  a 
journey  to  Rome  which  afforded  him  many  new  ex- 
periences. For  the  first  time  the  young  German  pro- 
fessor adequately  realized  the  corruption  and  degrada- 
tion into  which  the  Church  had  fallen.  The  open  irre- 
ligion,  the  shameless  vice,  the  wicked  blasphemies,  at 
Rome  were  provoking  some  even  of  the  Romans  them- 
selves to  assert  that  "  it  was  a  hell,  and  could  not  hold 
out  much  longer."1  One  incident  occurred  there  which 
proves  that  Luther  was  then  already  on  the  way  towards 
the  revision  of  his  ideas  regarding  religious  devotion. 
Many  years  afterwards,  he  related  to  his  friends  that, 
whilst  he  was  praying  as  he  laboriously  climbed  the 
Scala  Lateranensis  on  his  knees,  the  words  of  Habakkuk 
came  into  his  mind,  "  The  just  shall  live  by  his  faith," 
and  he  at  once  rose  to  his  feet  and  walked  away.  It 
was,  in  actual  fact,  a  token  of  incipient  revolt. 

It  is  comparatively  easy  to  discover  to  which  side 
in  the  Reuchlin-Pfefferkorn  controversy  Luther's  sym- 
pathies inclined  ;2  his  strong  patriotic  sentiments 
furnish  one  basis  of  inference.  Reuchlin's  position  as 
the  chief  German  scholar  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
commend  his  cause  to  Luther.3  But  the  latter  had,  by 
this  time,  become  theologically  an  opponent  of  that 
scholasticism  which  Reuchlin  and  the  principal  human- 
ists resisted  on  literary  and  philosophical  grounds.* 
The  standpoint  of  the  Augustinian  friar  of  Wittemberg 
was  an  entirely  different  one  from  that  of  the  humanists. 
Amongst  these,  no  doubt,  he  possessed  some  friends  : 
Crotus  Rubeanus  had  been  his  fellow-student  at  the 

1  Ibid.,  I,  105. 

2  There  are  numerous  passages  in  his  extant  lectures  which  prove  that 
he  made  extensive  use  of  Reuchlin's  works  on  Hebrew.- — D.  Martin 
Luihers  IVerke,  Weimar  1883 — ,  III,  30,  54,  148,  etc. 

8  Luther  liked  Tauler's  sermons  all  the  better  on  account  of  their 
German  dress — see  his  ep.  to  Spalatin,  14th  Dec,  1516,  in  Epistolarum 
Reuerendi  Pairis  Domini  D.  Martini  Luthcri,  tomus  primus,  Ihenae 
1556,  fol.  32;  DeWette,  1,44-6.    Cp.  also  Kostlin,  I,  121. 

*  Kostlin,  I,  138. 


202        THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

University  of  Erfurt,  and  with  Mutianus  he  had  been 
brought  into  friendly  relations,  presumably  by  Spalatin.1 
But  Luther's  objections  to  the  scholasticism  of  the  day 
had  an  intensely  religious  foundation.  What  was  for 
the  humanists  a  matter  of  intellectual  freedom  was  for 
him  a  matter  of  the  soul  and  conscience.  We  observe, 
therefore,  that  he  felt  the  warmest  sympathies  with 
Reuchlin,  and  expressed,  in  a  letter  to  Spalatin 
(August,  1514),  a  very  contemptuous  opinion  of 
Ortwin."  Yet,  both  here  and  in  an  earlier  letter  to 
the  same  correspondent,  he  intimated  his  fears  that 
the  cause  of  true  religion  would  meet  with  loss  rather 
than  gain  from  the  dispute.8  Indeed,  Luther  believed 
that  the  use  of  ridicule  and  contumely  in  a  cause  which 
had  some  connection  with  the  inculcation  of  evangelical 
piety  was  a  mistake,  and  one  greatly  to  be  regretted.4 
He  recognized,  not  unjustly,  that  although  satire  might 
possibly  further  the  designs  which  the  humanists  them- 
selves had  at  heart,  no  advantage  was  likely  to  accrue 
to  the  Christian  religion  from  it.  Before,  however,  that 
final  decision  in  the  affair  of  Reuchlin,  for  which  Luther 
so  ardently  prayed,  should  have  been  pronounced  by 
the  Pope,  his  own  controversy  was  destined  to  have 
arisen  and  taken  on  a  graver  aspect  than  Reuchlin's 
had  ever  borne. 

During  the  year  15 16  the  mind  of  Luther,  especially 
as  regarded  his  mental  attitude  towards  popular  con- 
ceptions of  doctrine  and  practice,  and  his  estimate  of 

1  Ibid.,  I,  140. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  139,  and  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  6  ;  De  Wette,  I,  13-4. 

3  Luther,  alluding  to  the  aims  of  Pfefferkorn  and  his  friends,  said  (De 
Wette,  I,  7  ;  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  ovo.) :  "  Jam  vere  de  hoc  quid  dicam, 
quod  Beelzebub  ejicerc  moliuntur,  et  non  in  digito  Dei  ?  Hoc  est,  quod 
saepe  plango  et  doleo."  But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  disapproved  of  the 
tactics  of  their  opponents — see  De  Wette,  I,  13  ;  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  6. 
Cp.  a  letter  of  his  to  Spalatin,  Nov.,  1517,  De  Wette,  I,  75-6  ;  Lutheri 
Epp.,  fol.  43VO. 

4  See  his  epp.  to  John  Lange,  5th  Oct.,  1516,  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  26, 
and  De  Wette,  I,  37,  and  to  Spalatin,  Oct.,  1516,  De  Wette,  I,  38. 


GROWTH   OF   LUTHER'S  OPINIONS     203 

the  value  of  externals  in  divine  worship,  was  maturing 
rapidly  under  the  combined  influences  of  the  Bible,  the 
works  of  St.  Augustine,  and  the  writings  of  the  mystics.1 
He  then  emerged  into  the  light  of  day  as  an  independent 
thinker  on  religious  matters.  Not  that  he  all  at  once 
displayed  that  confidence  in  his  own  judgment  which 
comes,  in  the  case  of  every  original  thinker,  only  gradu- 
ally, even  sometimes  with  painful  slowness.  Of  some  of 
the  old  opinions  which  had  been  taught  him  he  was  still 
very  tenacious,  but  he  had  now  entered  on  the  path 
which  was  to  lead  him  into  opposition  to  the  authority 
of  Rome.  His  dissatisfaction  with  scholastic  theology 
grew  with  each  day.2  Even  the  teaching  of  Lefevre,  and 
more  particularly  that  of  Erasmus,3  because  both  lacked 
the  Augustinian  doctrines  of  grace  and  personal  right- 
eousness and  appeared  to  be  restricted  to  the  enuncia- 
tion of  rules  of  external  devotion  and  piety,  he  not  only 
deprecated  but  almost  went  so  far  as  to  condemn.  So 
completely  did  he  absorb  the  instructions  of  his  favourite 
authors  that  he  soon  found  his  opinions  at  variance 
with  those  contained  in  contemporary  theology. 
Accordingly,  as  early  as  May,  15 17,  he  was  involved 
in  a  theological  argument  concerning  certain  proposi- 
tions drawn  indirectly  from  St.  Augustine,  which 
Luther  declared  were  regarded  by  some  as  unorthodox 
and  by  others  as  erroneous,  but  the  fault,  he  maintained, 
really  lay  with  the  critics  themselves  because  they  did 
not  read  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  intelligently.4    In  a 

1  See  his  Quaestio  de  viribus  et  voluntate  hominis  sine  gratia  disputata, 
1 5 16,  and  his  Vorrede  to  the  deutschen  Theologie  of  December,  1516. — 
Werke  (Weimar),  I,  142-53. 

8  Ibid.,  I,  221-8  {Disputatio  contra  scholasticam  theologiam),  and  his  ep. 
toSpalatin,  14th  Jany.,  15 18,  Lutheri  Fpp.,io\.  45  et  seq. 

3  At  first,  he  explained  that  the  difference  between  his  ideas  and  those 
of  Erasmus  was  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  Dutch  scholar's  preference 
of  St.  Jerome  as  an  authority  to  St.  Augustine,  and  his  own  preference 
of  the  African  father  to  St.  Jerome. —  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  27,  34,  and  47  ; 
De  Wette,  I,  39-40  and  52-3. 

4  Ep.  toChristoph  Scheurl,  6th  May,  1517. — De  Wette,  I,  55. 


204        THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

letter  dated  18th  May,  1517,  addressed  to  John  Lange, 
Prior  at  Erfurt,1  Luther  announced  : — 

Our  theology  and  St.  Augustine  are  advancing  and 
prevailing  in  our  University,  with  the  help  of  God  ; 
Aristotle  is  gradually  falling,  and  is  tottering  to  a 
speedy  and  permanent  overthrow. 

By  September  of  the  same  year  he  had  made  a  further 
move  forward — that  is  to  say,  he  composed  theses  on 
some  parts  of  current  theology.  As  these  theses  met 
with  hostile  criticism  he  sought  the  advice  and  judg- 
ment of  Eck  upon  them.  Their  nature  cannot  be 
ascertained  from  the  expressions  which  Luther  employs 
in  reference  to  them  in  his  letter  of  nth  September, 
1517,  to  Christoph  Scheurl.8  The  editor  of  his 
epistolary  correspondence,  De  Wette,  merely  ventures 
upon  a  conjecture  that  "these  propositions  were  directed 
against  the  scholastic  theology,"  but  his  supposition 
is  not  convincing. 

Only  another  month  and  his  loyalty  to  Pauline 
theology  as  expounded  by  the  great  Bishop  of  Hippo 
conducted  him  into  antagonism  with  papal  practices. 

Pope  Julius  II  adopted,  with  his  customary  vigour  and 
thoroughness,  about  the  middle  of  1505,  the  design 
which  Nicholas  V  had  first  contemplated,  of  rebuilding 
St.  Peter's  at  Rome.  The  ancient  basilica,  which  had 
lasted  for  twelve  centuries  and  had  therefore  formed  a 
venerable  connecting  link  between  the  establishment 
of  Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire  and  the  commence- 
ment of  modern  times,  was  in  a  ruinous  state.  Instead 
of  providing  some  scheme  by  which  the  old  church 
would  be  restored,  or  at  least  preserved,  Bramante, 
Julius's  favourite  architect,  persuaded  the  pontiff  to 
accept  a  plan  for  the  erection  of  the  new  St.  Peter's 
on  the  site  of  the  old  that  involved  the  demolition  of  the 
latter.  If  lovers  of  antiquity,  and  especially  those  whose 
hearts  are  touched  by  honourable  sentiments  towards 

1/^,1,57.  2/^.,i,63. 


THE   INDULGENCES  205 

the  memorials  of  the  early  Christian  Church,  deplore 
the  loss  of  the  time-worn  basilica,  they  must  neverthe- 
less acknowledge  that  the  offender  (Bramante)  atoned, 
in  no  small  degree,  for  the  imperfection  of  his  advice 
with  the  magnificent  grandeur  of  his  architectural 
proposals.1  But  splendid  architecture  demands  plenti- 
ful supplies  of  money  to  carry  it  into  execution,  and  the 
resources  of  the  papacy  were  being  strained  to  the  utmost 
by  Julius's  military  enterprises.  Extraordinary  efforts, 
therefore,  were  required,  from  time  to  time,  to  raise 
the  necessary  funds  for  the  continuance  of  the  building 
operations.  For  that  purpose,  Julius  wrote  to  several 
Christian  princes  soliciting  their  aid.  Moreover,  he 
appointed  special  collectors  of  charitable  gifts  towards 
this  object,  and  set  aside  for  it  certain  sums  derivable 
from  the  sale  of  Indulgences.2  During  the  subsequent 
pontificate,  that  of  Leo  X,  similar  methods  were  pur- 
sued.* About  the  year  1517,  Pope  Leo  committed  the 
collection  of  the  proceeds  of  Indulgences  in  Germany  to 
Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mainz  and  Elector,  who  entrusted 
the  business  to  Tetzel,  a  zealous  Dominican. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  theory  of  Indulgences 
was  not  clearly  defined  at  this  period  ;  eminent  theo- 
logians still  held  diverse  opinions  as  to  what  con- 
stituted their  scope.  Besides,  in  the  course  of  time,  they 
had  come  to  be  applied  to  cases  far  different  from  those 
to  which  they  had  reference  in  former  days.  Originally, 
sincere  repentance,  confession,  and  the  undertaking  of 
a  laborious  task,  such  as  a  long  pilgrimage  or  service 
as  a  crusader,  were  regarded  as  the  proper  grounds  for 
obtaining  an  Indulgence.  Papal  practices  had,  how- 
ever, made  its  acquisition  easier,  by  substituting  a  pay- 
ment of  money  to  some  charitable  purpose  designated  by 

1  Pastor,  VI,  460-81. 

2  Ibid.,  VI,  482. 

3  The  rumour  of  that  date  that  Leo  used  the  Indulgences  as  a  means  of 
raising  money  for  his  relatives  was  rejected  by  Roscoe,  III,  150,  but  has 
been  lately  revived  by  Lindsay,  I,  232. 


206         THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

the  pontiff  instead  of  the  arduous  work  of  satisfaction, 
and  even  by  adding  facilities  for  the  performance  of  the 
other  portion  of  the  sacrament  of  penance.1 

Tetzel  proved  himself  an  energetic  collector  of 
revenues.  Apparently,  he  was  anxious  to  execute  his 
commission  as  well  as  he  could.  Unfortunately,  he 
adopted  methods  for  this  object  which  even  those  most 
eager  to  defend  him  have  been  compelled  to  acknowledge 
were  reprehensible.2  Moreover,  it  was  his  misfortune 
that  he  did  not  give  sufficient  heed  to  the  manifest 
tokens  of  impatience  in  Germany  at  the  quantity  of 
money  which  had  been  for  many  years  going  Rome- 
wards.  Yet  it  is  strange  that  he  should  have  failed  to 
observe  them,  for  he  received  many  warnings  of  what 
was  certain  to  occur,  sooner  or  later,  on  an  extensive 
scale.3 

Luther's  advance  in  theology  rendered  him  somewhat 
intolerant  of  whatever  opposed  the  Augustinian  views 
which  he  had  accepted.  Tetzel's  plan  of  hawking  the 
Indulgences  about  and  lauding  them,  just  as  if  they 
were  ordinary  merchandise,  to  increase  their  sale  was 
repulsive  to  him  ;  the  terms  in  which  the  commissioner 
described  the  Indulgences  and  their  efficacy  seemed  to 
many  besides  Luther  absolutely  blasphemous.  But, 
apart  from  these  considerations,  Luther  was  inclined  to 
limit  very  severely  the  whole  scope  of  Indulgences.* 
He  had  already  studied  the  subject  carefully  and  pond- 
ered much  upon  it,  before  the  arrival  of  Tetzel  at  a  part 
of  Ducal  Saxony  which  lay  close  to  the  neighbourhood 

1  Kostlin,  bd.  I,  and  Lindsay,  vol.  I,  discourse  at  some  length  on  the 
doctrine  of  Indulgences.  Pastor  also,  VII,  329-49,  deals  with  the  same 
subject,  but  does  not  arrive,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  at  a  conclusion 
similar  to  theirs.  For  an  admirably  clear,  and  brief,  statement  of  the 
Indulgence-system,  consult  C'reighton,  VI,  69  et  seq. 

2  Pastor,  VII,  350. 

3  Some  of  the  princes  prohibited  him  from  introducing  his  Papal 
Letters  {Indulgentiae  papales,  or  literae  Indulgentiarum)  into  their 
dominions.  Of  these  one  was  Frederick,  Flector  of  Saxony,  in  whose 
principality  Wittemberg  was  situated. 

*  Lindsay,  I,  227. 


LUTHER'S   PROTEST  207 

of  Wittemberg  roused  him  to  protest  against  the 
Dominican  and  his  methods.  He  chose  a  remarkable 
moment  for  the  formal  publication  of  his  dissent. 

On  All  Saints'  Day,  1517,  Luther  nailed  his  famous 
Theses  to  the  door  of  the  Castle  church  at  Wittem- 
berg.1 All  public  disputations,  in  those  days,  were 
published  by  means  of  notices  affixed  to  the  door  of  the 
principal  church  in  the  district.  The  Castle  church, 
moreover,  was  intimately  connected  with  the  University, 
so  that  a  peculiar  fitness  marked  the  place  that  he  chose 
for  the  publication  of  his  Theses.  But  the  occasion 
also  was  singularly  apt.  The  Castle  church  had  been 
constituted  by  the  Elector  Frederick  the  repository  of 
a  collection  of  relics  which  he  had  made,  and,  because 
it  was  dedicated  to  All  Saints,  special  solemnities  were 
customarily  observed  in  it  at  that  great  November 
festival.  Frederick,  too,  had  obtained  a  grant  of 
Indulgence  for  all  those  who  should  then  visit  the  church 
and  inspect  the  relics.  Consequently,  it  was  usual  for 
multitudes  of  pilgrims  and  visitors,  on  that  day,  to 
throng  Wittemberg  and  its  principal  church.* 

The  Theses  were  published  in  both  the  conventional 
Latin  form  and  a  German  version.3  Luther  thus 
rendered  his  opinions  on  Indulgences  accessible  to  the 
people.  To  Germany,  restless  and  eager  as  she  was  to 
manifest  her  hostility  to  ecclesiastical  encroachments, 
Luther's  challenge  was  exceedingly  welcome.  The 
nation  had  become  accustomed  to  see  the  Dominicans, 
and  other  representatives  of  ecclesiastical  tyranny, 
always  taking  the  offensive  side  in  every  contest ;  its 
delighted  surprise  was,  therefore,  all  the  greater  at 

1  It  ought  to  be  remembered  that  Luther,  by  this  publication  of  the 
Ninety-five  Theses,  did  not  commit  himself  irrevocably  to  the  opinions 
contained  in  them  (see  Werke,  Weimar,  I,  233-8).  They  were  merely 
propositions  for  discussion  (see  Pastor,  VII,  351).  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Luther  was  by  no  means  clear,  at  this  time,  as  to  what  constituted  the 
value  of  Indulgences — cp.  his  ep.  to  Spalatin,  15th  Feb.,  15 18. 

2  Epistola  nuncupatoria  (page  9)  prefixed  to  Luthcri  Epp. 

3  For  a  brief  summary  of  them,  see  Lindsay,  I,  229. 


208         THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

finding  a  German  who  had  not  only  the  courage  to 
attack  the  hated  order  of  the  Preachers  but  the  ability 
to  fix  upon  the  most  vulnerable  part  of  ecclesiasticism 
as  the  point  of  his  assault.  So,  at  least,  it  seemed  to 
Germany  at  the  time.  The  Theses  were  read  with 
avidity.1  So  boisterously  enthusiastic  were  the  students 
of  Wittemberg  that  they  imperilled  Luther's  safety.* 

That  Luther  desired  to  be  regarded  at  this  juncture 
as  an  assailant  of  the  Church  or  churchmen  may  be, 
with  ample  reason,  dismissed  from  one's  thoughts. 
For,  on  the  same  day  that  he  put  forth  his  Theses,  he 
wrote  to  Archbishop  Albert  a  letter  in  which  he  ex- 
plained his  action.3  It  is  impossible  to  read  that  epistle 
without  perceiving  that  Luther  believed  himself  to  be 
engaging  in  a  task  which  merited  the  approbation  of  the 
heads  of  the  Church,  and  would  receive  it.4  He  mani- 
festly considered  that  his  newly  acquired  Augustinian 
views  were  of  authority  in  the  Church,  and  that  where 
these  clashed  with  ecclesiastical  practices,  the  latter 
should  be  deemed  inadvertently  erroneous. 

Replies  to  Luther's  Theses  appeared  in  quick  suc- 
cession. Tetzel  at  once  issued  counter-theses.  Sylvester 
Prierias,  a  Dominican  official  of  the  Vatican,  to  whose 
efforts  the  unsatisfactory  termination  of  the  Reuchlin 
case  at  Rome  in  15 16  was  due,  published,  during  the 
opening  days  of  15 18,  a  work  directed  against  the  "  pre- 
sumptuous conclusions  of  Martin  Luther."5  John  Eck 
also,  an  eminent  theologian  of  Ingolstadt,  with  whom 
in  the  following  3'ear  Luther  had  his  famous  Disputa- 
tion, put  forth  a  reply  to  the  Ninety-five  Theses  under 

1  Luther's  ep.  to  Scheurl,  5th  March,  1518. — De  Wette,  I,  95-6. 

2  Ep.  to  Lange,  21st  March,  1518. —  Ibid.,  I,  98  ;  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol. 
55vo. 

3  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  38-40  ;  De  Wette,  I,  67-70. 

4  Consult  especially  the  passage  of  the  ep.  to  the  Archbishop  which 
begins  "Circumferuntur  Indulgentiae  papales"  and  ends  with  "et 
omnes  poenae  deleantur  Purgatorii." 

6  Sleidan  (Jean),  Histoire  de  I'estat  de  la  Religion,  et  Republique  sous 
l' Empeteur  Charles  Cinquieme,  etc.,  imprime  a  Strasbourg,  1558,  i6b-i8a. 


LUTHER   ON  THE   INDULGENCES       209 

the  title  of  Obelisks.  Luther's  rejoinder  to  this  last 
book  was  a  pamphlet  called  Asterisks.1 

His  more  temperate  critics  deserved  a  carefully 
reasoned  vindication  or  defence  of  his  position.  This 
he,  accordingly,  gave  them,  about  the  middle  of  1518, 
in  his  Resolutiones ,  a  work  which  has  been  described  as 
the  "  most  carefully  written  of  all  Luther's  writings."8 

Luther's  attitude  of  mind  towards  the  Indulgences 
and  the  vulgar  estimation  of  them  can  be  ascertained, 
with  a  great  deal  of  accuracy,  from  his  correspondence 
during  1517-18.  Early  in  the  latter  year,  Staupitz, 
the  Vicar-General  of  his  order,  whose  ideals  of  piety  had 
hitherto  profoundly  influenced  Luther,  produced  a 
little  book  on  The  Sweet  Love  of  God,  from  which  it  may 
be  readily  observed  that  the  religious  thought  of  his 
chief  had  been,  to  no  small  extent,  the  mainspring  of 
Luther's  bold  action.  Staupitz  had  emphasized  the 
necessity  of  faith  for  obtaining  the  consolations  and 
benefits  of  religion,8  and  as  the  controversy  developed, 
the  one  fundamental  truth  to  which  Luther  adhered 
firmly  and  consistently,  viz.,  that  faith  was  absolutely 
essential  to  the  validity  of  all  the  exercises  of  religion, 
began  gradually  to  exhibit  itself  more  and  more  clearly 
as  the  real  point  at  issue. 

When  Spalatin  inquired,  early  in  1518,  what  he  con- 
sidered the  true  value  of  the  Indulgences,  Luther 
replied  *: — 

This  question  is  not  settled,  and  my  discussion  of  it 
meets  only  with  contumely.      However,  I  may  say  two 

1  Lutheri  Epp.,  epist.  nuncupat.,  p.  9.  For  the  Asterisci  Lutheri 
adversus  Obeliscos  Eckii  (1518)  consult  Werke  (Weimar),  I,  281-314, 
where  each  Asteriscus  is  a  response  to  an  Obeliscus. 

2  Lindsay,  I,  230.  For  these  Resolutiones  see  Werke  (Weimar),  I, 
530-628. 

8  Cp.  chap.  IX  of  this  little  tract  with  chaps.  VI  and  IX  of  another 
entitled  "  The  Holy  Christian  Faith,"  which  he  wrote  about  this  time — 
Two  ancient  Spiritual  Treatises  of  Dr.  John  of  Staupitz,  English  trans., 
London,  1692.  Observe  Luther's  Sermo  de  digna  preparatione  cordis  pro 
su^cipiendo  Sacramento  Eucharistie,  1518,  Werke  (Weimar),  I,  329-334. 

4  Ep.  of  15th  Feb.,  1 5 18. — DeWette,  1,92  ;   Lutheri  Epp.,io\.  51. 


210         THE   BEGINNINGS  OF   LUTHER 

things  :  Firstly — to  thee  alone  and  our  friends,  until 
such  time  as  it  may  be  published — I  have  begun  to 
think  that  Indulgences  contain  nothing  but  deception 
of  souls,  and  are,  in  no  case,  of  benefit  except  to  lazy 
and  indolent  followers  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Secondly — and 
herein  is  no  doubt,  for  not  only  the  whole  Church,  but 
even  my  foes  are  compelled  to  acknowledge  it — alms- 
giving and  helping  one's  neighbour  is  vastly  better 
than  Indulgences. 

But  he  reserved  the  revelation  of  his  inmost  thoughts 
for  Staupitz,  as  for  one  who,  being  his  spiritual  father, 
wrould  understand  and  approve  of  them.  He  told  him 
(31st  March,  1518)  that,  though  his  name  is  in  bad  odour 
with  many,  and  some  slanderously  assert  he  contemns 
pious  exercises,  the  fact  is  that  he  has  ever  kept  stead- 
fast to  Tauler's  theology  and  to  the  doctrine  set  out 
in  Staupitz's  own  works.1  In  the  same  letter,  Luther 
advanced  a  strong  plea  for  liberty  to  hold  opinions 
different  from  those  of  the  scholastic  theologians.8 
But  the  epistle  which  he  forwarded  to  the  same  corres- 
pondent on  30th  May,  1518,  was  one  of  much  greater 
importance,  and  indeed  also  length.3  He  enclosed  in  it 
the  Resolutiones ,  together  with  a  covering  epistle  to 
Leo  X.  This  letter  to  Staupitz  is  of  the  nature  of  an 
Apologia,  and  contains  a  candid  defence  of  his  conduct 
which  does  much  to  prove  that  the  motives  by  which 
he  had  been  urged  to  publish  the  Ninety-five  Theses 
were  at  least  honest.  Luther  was  aware  that  Staupitz, 
on  account  of  his  official  position,  required  a  satis- 
factory explanation  of  the  events  that  had  occurred  in 
order  that  he  might  be  able  to  transmit  to  the  Pope 
the  Resolutiones  and  the  accompanying  epistle. 

To  the  pontiff,  Luther  related,  from  his  own  point  of 
view,  the  origin  and  history  of  the  controversy.*    He 

1  De  Wette,  I,  102-3. 
iIbid. 

3  Ibid.,  I,  1 1 5-8  ;    Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  66-69. 

4  It  bears  the  same  date  as  that  to  Staupi'z. — De  Wette,  I,  1 19-122  ; 
Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  69-71. 


CARDINAL  CAJETAN  211 

maintained  that  the  traffickers  in  Indulgences  had  done 
much  more  than  he  to  cast  discredit  on  the  papal  see. 
When  he  heard  of  the  malicious  heretical  lies  which  they 
were  disseminating  he  had  challenged  them,  in  accord- 
ance with  his  right  as  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  to  a  dis- 
putation upon  the  subject.  He  has  now  been  called 
on  to  retract,  but  how  could  he,  under  the  circumstances, 
retract  ?  In  Leo's  hands  he  left  the  matter,  and  was 
prepared  to  accept  his  verdict  as  that  of  Christ  speaking 
through  him. 

Probably  Leo  himself  would  have  been  glad  enough 
to  ignore  the  Lutheran  dispute,  or  at  least  to  take  slow 
and  gradual  steps  towards  intervention,1  but  the 
officials  of  the  Curia  considered  it  advisable  to  urge  the 
Pontiff  to  take  prompt  action  against  Luther.  Accord- 
ingly, a  papal  citation  to  Rome  (dated  7th  August)  was 
forwarded  to  the  Augustinian  friar  of  Wittemberg. 
He,  for  his  part,  refused  to  comply  with  the  citation, 
and  in  this  had  the  support  (obtained  for  him  by  his 
friend  Spalatin)  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the 
Emperor  Maximilian.  Thereupon,  the  Pope  com- 
mitted the  management  of  the  affair  to  his  Nuncio  in 
Germany,  Cardinal  Cajetan  (Thomas  de  Vio).2  Un- 
fortunately, the  instructions  issued  to  Cajetan,  even 
though  the  original  ones  had  been  modified,  were  still 
not  conciliatory  enough,  and,  in  consequence,  the  inter- 
view between  the  Nuncio  and  Luther  at  Augsburg 
(October,  1518)  was  unproductive  of  any  hopeful  result. 
For  the  Cardinal,  in  obedience  to  them,  put  forth  a 

1  Slcidan,  16b  and  44b.  The  estimate  which  Luther  had  formed  of 
Leo's  personal  character  remained  all  through  the  controversy  very  high, 
and  even  in  his  later  denunciations  of  the  Curia  he  averred  that  Leo  was 
sitting  there  like  a  lamb  in  the  midst  of  wolves — Slcidan,  46-7;  Kostlin,  I, 
384  et  seq.  ;  Creighton,  VI,  158  ;  ep.  to  Leo,  October,  1520 — De  Wctte, 
I,  497,  and  Littheri  Epp.,  fol.  255-62.  Cp.  also  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  282VO. 
(1 1  th  September,  1520):  "  Scribam  itaque  id  quod  res  est,  nihil  unquam 
in  me  fuisse,  quod  in  personam  pontificis  raperetur  :  quid  enim  & 
facilius  &  vcrius  scriberc  possum  ?  " 

'  For  the  correspondence  which  led  up  to  this  procedure,  see  Slcidan, 
202b  ;   Roscoe,  III,  Appendices  150-3. 


212         THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

demand  for  an  unconditional  recantation,  which  met 
with  an  equally  decisive  refusal.  One  useful  purpose 
alone  the  interview  served  :  it  made  clear  the  grounds 
upon  which  the  Curia  was  proceeding  against  Luther, 
and  marked  out  for  special  condemnation  his  doctrine 
that,  in  order  to  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament,  it 
was  requisite  to  have  an  absolute  faith  in  its  efficacy.1 

Luther  appealed  from  the  Pope  ill-informed  to  the 
Pope  well-informed  ;  shortly  afterwards  he  appealed 
also  to  a  future  General  Council,  and  then  returned  to 
Wittemberg,  where  he  forthwith  wrote  out  and  published 
a  report  of  the  interview.1 

By  the  fresh  vigour  he  had  infused  into  his  work, 
students  in  ever  increasing  numbers  had  been  attracted 
to  Wittemberg  and  the  prestige  of  the  University  greatly 
enhanced.3  Outside  the  University  the  name  of  Luther 
was  now  wide'y  known  amongst  his  compatriots  as 
that  of  one  who  had  protested  against  German  money 
being  conveyed  away  to  Rome,  who  had  said  that  the 
Indulgences  did  not  possess  such  efficacy  as  was  claimed 
for  them,  and  who  had  stood  forth  like  a  brave  German 
to   oppose   Roman   tyranny   in   Germany.4     Luther's 

1  Luther  to  Carlstadt,  14th  Oct.,  15 18  :  "  Zum  erstcn,  dass  ich  gesagt 
hab,  dass  der  Ablass  nicht  sey  der  Schatz  des  Verdiensts  unsers  lieben 
Herrn  und  Seligmachers  Christi.  Zum  andern,  dass  ein  Mensch,  das  zu 
dem  allerhochwirdigsten  Sacrament  gehen  will,  glaubcn  musse." — De 
Wette,  I,  159. 

If  Pastor,  VII,  372,  be  right  regarding  Cajetan's  "  confidence  in  the 
theological  superiority  of  his  position,  which  made  him  hope  to  arrive 
by  scientific  methods  at  conclusions  before  which  his  adversary  would 
be  compelled  to  yield,"  it  is  marvellous  how  little  of  his  scientific  methods 
appeared  in  his  interview  with  Luther. 

2  His  Acta  Augustana  and  his  two  (1518)  Appeals  are  to  be  found  in 
Werke  (Weimar),  II,  6-26,  28-33,  36-40. 

3  Luther's  ep.  to  Martin  Glaser,  Augustinian  Prior  in  Ransau,  30th 
May,  1 5 19 — De  Wette,  I,  279. 

4  Pope  Leo's  Constitution  on  the  Doctrine  of  Indulgences,  bearing  date 
9th  November,  15 18,  effected  no  change  in  the  thoughts  of  the  German 
people,  who  probably  regarded  it  as  a  law  promulgated  by  the  pope  to 
justify  the  previous  actions  of  himself  and  his  emissaries — Pastor,  VII, 
379-80. 


MILTITZ  AND   CONCILIATION  213 

method,  therefore,  of  taking  his  countrymen  into  his 
confidence,  in  a  matter  which  appeared  to  affect  them 
all,  ensured  him  of  their  support.  Everything  which  he 
published  was  eagerly  read. 

As  his  advisers  deemed  severity  inexpedient,  on 
account  of  the  hostility  of  the  German  people  and  the 
threatening  aspect  of  general  politics,  the  pontiff 
despatched  Karl  von  Miltitz,  a  Saxon  nobleman  and  a 
friend  of  Spalatin,  to  institute  inquiries  into  the  affair 
in  a  conciliatory  spirit.1  The  papal  envoy  was  well 
chosen.  Being  himself  a  German  he  could  gauge,  to 
an  extent  of  accuracy  impossible  to  an  Italian  emissary, 
the  temper  of  his  compatriots.  Miltitz,  consequently, 
very  nearly  brought  the  dispute  to  a  peaceful  end  by 
his  address.  He  exacted  a  promise  from  Luther  that 
he  would  write  a  submissive  letter  to  Pope  Leo  and  do 
everything  in  his  power  (short  of  a  recantation)  both  to 
allay  the  wrath  of  the  people  and  to  revive  a  deferential 
attitude  on  their  part  towards  the  Holy  See.  As  for 
Luther,  he  could  hardly  have  expressed  greater 
solicitude  than  he  did,  in  his  letter  to  the  Elector 
Frederick  (January,  1519)  and  in  that  to  the  Pope 
(3rd  March,  1519),2  for  the  cause  of  peace  and  the  welfare 
of  religion.  Both  letters  contained  an  offer  of  con- 
siderable value  ;  Luther  undertook  to  write  a  pamphlet 
exhorting  all  Christians  to  honour  the  Holy  Church 
and  its  Head  and  to  forgive  his  own  injudicious  and  too 
little  respectful  bearing  towards  the  authorities  of  the 
Church.8 

1  Sleidan,  31. 

2  De  Wette,  I,  207-8,  and  233-5  5   Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  153-4. 

3  Pastor,  VII,  383,  charges  Luther  with  insincerity  because  he  ad- 
dressed the  pontiff  submissively  in  this  epistle,  whilst,  about  the  same 
time,  he  expressed  his  doubtfulness  as  to  whether  the  pope  were  Anti- 
christ or  only  his  emissary.  It  is  true  that,  from  time  to  time,  the  anger 
which  his  opponents  fomented  caused  Luther  to  use  disrespectful  ex- 
pressions of  the  papacy.  Yet,  it  does  not  seem  impossible  to  believe  that, 
when  he  spoke  submissively  and  professed  respect,  he  was  uttering  the 
truth  as  it  appeared  to  him  in  his  calmer  moments.    Alternations  in  the 


214        THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

When  the  Curia  learned  of  the  compromise  at  which 
Miltitz  had  arrived,  it  declined  to  sanction  it,  and  there- 
by once  again  (and  this  time  finally)  destroyed  the 
hope  of  reconciliation.  This  is  a  circumstance  that  must 
be  greatly  deplored.  For  his  part,  Luther  had  kept 
the  agreement  made  with  the  papal  envoy.  The 
responsibility,  therefore,  for  the  further  continuance  of 
the  strife  has  to  be  laid  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Vatican 
officials  and  the  adversaries  of  Luther  in  Germany. 
If  the  Curia  had  been  satisfied  with  the  results  of 
Miltitz's  endeavours  and  had  taken  the  precaution  of 
silencing  the  combatants  of  both  parties,  western 
Christendom  might  still  have  retained  its  unity  un- 
impaired. Christian  charity  and  patience  combined 
with  prudence  were,  at  this  juncture,  essentials  for  the 
healing  of  the  manifold  disputes  which  had  arisen ;  they, 
in  all  probability,  would  have  had  a  beneficial  effect 
upon  the  destinies  of  the  Christian  Faith.  Unfortunately 
the  age  was  one  in  which  these  gentle  social  virtues 
exerted  little  influence  over  the  course  of  public  affairs. 
The  cause  of  religion  has  had,  consequently,  to  suffer 
many  reverses  which  might  never  have  occurred,  if  the 
great  commandment  of  the  Lord  had  swayed  the  minds 
of  His  followers,  or  if  the  voices  of  the  peacemakers  had 
been  allowed  to  prevail  in  the  councils  of  the  Christian 
Church. 

During  the  summer  of  15 19  the  contest  began  to 
assume  a  new  character.  Luther  and  Eck  met  in  dispu- 
tation at  Leipzig.  On  numerous  previous  occasions 
Luther's  opponents  had  asserted  that  the  real  point 
in  debate  was  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope ; 1  they  had 

judgment  of  a  man,  exposed  to  attack  and  harassed  oftentimes  by  critics 
who  are  unfair  or  have  their  own  objects  and  interests  to  serve,  are  not 
rare  and  do  not  necessarily  imply  moral  depravity. 

Whilst  the  negotiations  were  proceeding  with  Miltitz,  Eck  and  especially 
Prierias  were  grieving  the  soul  of  Luther — see  Luther's  ep.  to  Scheurl, 
20th  Feb.,  1 5 19,  De  Wette,  I,  230;  and  that  to  Staupitz  of  the  same  date, 
Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  152. 

1  See,  for  instance,  Luther's  Ad  dialogum  Silvestri  Prieratis  de  potestate 


THE  TREATISES  OF   1520  215 

endeavoured  to  make  him  comprehend  that  his  protest 
against  the  traffic  in  Indulgences  was,  in  effect,  an 
attempt  to  detract  from  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See. 
He  had  always  repudiated  that  interpretation  of  his 
action  :  he  was  convinced  that  it  could  not  be  a  true 
one.  Now,  for  the  first  time  in  the  course  of  the  quarrel, 
the  reiterated  assertion  of  his  foes  took  effect  ;  he  began 
to  observe  clearly  the  real  tendency  of  his  op  nions. 
But  regarding  the  accuracy  of  them  he  maintained  no 
misgivings,  nor  did  his  newly-awakened  consciousness 
suggest  to  him  any  retraction  of  them.  Pursuing  the 
course  of  his  own  ratiocination,  he  arrived  at  a  view  of 
the  doctrine  of  supremacy  which  was  wholly  novel  to 
the  Church  of  his  time.1  The  disputation  at  Leipzig 
may  be,  therefore,  regarded  as  a  prelude  to  Luther's 
three  remarkable  treatises  of  1520,  "  To  the  Christian 
Nobility  of  the  German  Nation  respecting  the  Reforma- 
tion of  the  Christian  Estate,"  "Concerning  Christian 
Liberty,"  and  "On  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the 
Church."  Before  he  wrote  these  treatises,  Luther  had 
become  decided  in  his  mind  that  the  claims  of  thePapacy 
to  the  supremacy  of  the  Church  were  based  upon  false 
grounds,  and  he  accordingly  rejected,  with  undisguised 
abhorrence,  an  authority  which  he  had  come  to  consider 

papae  responsio,  1518 — Werke  (Weimar),  I,  647-86,  and  the  Replica  F. 
Silvestri  Prieratis  ad  F.  Martinnm  Luther — ibid.,  II,  50-6.  Pastor,  VII, 
393,  says  th-n  Prierias,  in  his  compendious  treatise,  Errata  et  argumenta 
Martini  Luteris  recitata,  etc.  (the  Dedication  of  which  to  Pope  Leo  was 
dated  10th  June,  15 19,  though  the  book  itself  was  not  printed  until 
27th  March,  1520),  declared  that  Luther,  even  when  he  protested  against 
the  Indulgence-vendors,  was  actually  impugning  the  papal  authority. 
And  it  may  have  been  so,  but  Luther,  at  that  early  date,  was  not  conscious 
of  this  significance  of  his  action. 

1  Sleidan,  44^45  5  Lindsay,  I,  235-9  5  Luther i  Epp.,  fol.  191-5. 
Consult  the  Resolutio  Luther  iana  super  propositione  XIII  de  potest  ate 
papae  and  the  Disputatio  I  Eccii  et  M.  Lutheri  Lipsiae  habita  1519 — 
Werke  (Weimar),  II,  183-240  and  254-383.  See  also  the  Resolmiones 
Lutherianae  super  propositionibus  suis  Lipsiae  disputatis  (ibid.,  II, 
391-435),  which  he  addressed,  soon  after  the  Leipzig  disputation,  to 
George  Spalatin  ;  in  them  Luther  maintained  the  opinions  he  had  ad- 
vanced at  Leipzig. 


216        THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

a  usurpation.  It  is  true  that  Laurentius  Valla  had 
shown  the  fictitious  character  of  the  so-called  Donation 
of  Constantine.  The  spuriousness  of  the  Isidorian 
Decretals  was  even  then  widely  acknowledged.  Luther, 
however,  went  far  beyond  these  results  of  historical 
criticism.  In  this  eventful  year  (1520),  he  subjected 
the  whole  ecclesiastical  system  to  a  critical  examina- 
tion in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  history.1  With  the 
results  of  his  deliberations  as  outlined  in  the  three 
tracts  of  that  year,  Protestants  of  different  nationalities 
and  denominations,  to  a  large  extent,  agree.  It  must 
be  confessed  that  these  books  are  not  pleasant  reading 
for  anyone  who  cherishes  sensitive  ideas  regarding  the 
manner  in  which  religious  questions  should  be  handled.' 
Yet,  two  facts  concerning  Luther  himself  must  be  taken 
into  consideration  when  judgment  is  being  passed  upon 
the  character  of  these  treatises.  The  intensity  of  his 
religious  convictions  which  had  caused  him  to  become 
an  Augustinian  produced  in  him,  when  he  discerned 

1  See  his  ep.  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V,  15th  January,  1520. — Luth. 
Epp.,  fol.  229-30  ;  that  to  Nicolaus  von  Amsdorf  (in  German),  23rd 
June,  1520 — De  Wette,  I,  457  ;  and  especially  that  to  Hermann  Tulich, 
Professor  at  Wittemberg,  6th  October,  1520 — ibid.,  I,  493.  The  latter 
forms,  in  actual  fact,  an  introduction  to  "  The  Babylonish  Captivity." 

2  Of  the  least  fiercely  polemical  of  the  three,  the  address  "  To  the 
Christian  Nobility,"  etc.,  John  Lange  had  expressed  his  disapproval  and 
termed  it  a  trumpet-blast  {classicum  tarn  atrox  &  ferox).  Luther,  there- 
fore, wrote  to  him,  18th  August,  1520,  "We  here  are  persuaded  that  the 
Papacy  is  truly  the  seat  of  Antichrist.  .  .  .  Odi  ex  corde  homincm  ilium 
peccati  et  filium  perditionis  cum  universo  suo  imperio,  quo  aliud  non 
nisi  peccatum  &  hypocrisis  alitur." — Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  279VO.  Mdanch- 
thon  also  wrote,  22nd  November,  1520,  to  Lange  on  the  same  subject  : 
"  Consilium  de  scribenda  ad  Germanicam  Nobilitatem  epistola  principio 
magis  non  improbavi,  quam  probavi.  Animabatur  enim  noster  ad  earn 
rem  praebendam  a  quibusdam,  quibus  utrique  multum  tribuimus. 
Deinde  res  per  sese  talis  est,  quam,  quia  divinitus  agi  puto,  morari  nolui. 
SpiritumMartini  nolim  temere  in  hac  causa, ad  quam  destinatus  iirb  irpovolai 
d  providentia  videtur,  interpellare.  Porro  libellus  jam  editus  est  &  euul- 
gatus,  ut  revocari  e  luce  in  tenebras  nulla  ratione  possit." — Epistolarum 
Liber.  Phil.  Melanchthonis,  Lugduni  Batavorum,  1647,  PP-  4r3"4- 

An  English  translation  of  these  treatises  is  to  be  found  in  Dean  Wace 
and  Dr.  Buchheim,  Luther's  Primary  Works,  London,  1883. 


EXCOMMUNICATION  217 

the  fictitious  nature  of  the  recent  curialist  pretensions, 
a  deep  and  unfeigned  abhorrence  of  the  modern  papal 
system.  Moreover,  he  felt  that  he  was  fighting  for  his 
life  ;  he  had  too  many  illustrations  from  previous 
generations  of  the  fate  which  usually  befell  those  who 
strove  for  reform  not  to  recognize  the  destiny  which 
might  possibly  be  awaiting  himself,  unless  he  should 
attain  security  by  a  strenuous  resistance.  To  him  it 
seemed  that  the  time  for  supplication  or  entreaty  ad- 
dressed to  the  Papacy  was  well-nigh  past,  and  that  of 
resistance,  perhaps  even  revolt,  had  come.  But  he  had 
yet  some  distance  to  travel  before  he  could  persuade  him- 
self to  break  openly  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  Rome 
herself  made  this  easy,  if  not  actually  imperative,  by  her 
own  action  in  launching  the  Bull  of  Excommunication, 
known  as  Exsurge  Domine,  against  him.  It  reached 
Wittemberg  about  nth  October,  1520,  and  the  epistle 
which  Luther  thereupon  wTote  to  Pope  Leo  is,  to  some 
extent,  a  reply  to  it.  It  is  not  difficult  to  observe  that 
Luther  had,  by  this  time,  resolved  upon  the  adoption  of 
novel  methods.1  The  Bull  was  not,  however,  the  sole 
cause,  though  probably  the  immediate  one,  of  provo- 
cation by  which  he  was  impelled  to  formulate  revolu- 
tionary designs.  According  to  his  view  of  the  matter,  it 
was  the  culminating  act  in  a  series  of  unjust  proceedings. 
The  partiality  of  the  papal  counsellors,  the  manifest 
intention  of  the  curial  authorities  to  condemn  him 
unheard,  and  their  unwise  step  of  commissioning  Eck, 
his  bitterest  German  foe,  to  conduct  in  Germany  the 
publication  of  the  papal  sentence,  drove  Luther  to 
translate  into  practice  the  scorn  which  he  had  learnt 
to  entertain  for  the  Roman  administration  of  supreme 
power  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.*  The  Universities  declined 

1  Lutheri  Epp.,  ep.  nuncup.,  p.  16  :  "  Ignoravit  vir  Dei  Papam  Anti- 
christum  esse,  hocque  demum  anno  vigesimo  perspcxit  :  ideoque  ad  eiu» 
clientelam  ac  fidem  aliquoties  confugit,  tanquam  eiu9  addictissimum 
mancipium." 

2  See  Pastor,  VII,  407  note.f    Eck  increased  the  difficulties  of  hi«  talk 


218         THE   BEGINNINGS  OF   LUTHER 

to  receive  Eck  ;  that  of  Wittemberg  refused  to  publish 
the  Bull.  Some  even  of  the  bishops  would  not  publish 
it  in  their  dioceses.    Luther  questioned  its  authenticity.1 

If  its  contents  be  regarded  attentively,  the  Bull2  will 
be  seen  to  exhibit  few  tokens  of  administrative  sagacity. 
By  asserting  too  strongly  the  claims  of  the  Holy  See, 
it  injured  its  case  ;  by  condemning  Luther  as  a  reformer, 
when,  in  fact,  the  difficulties  of  his  position  had  trans- 
formed him  into  a  rebel,  it  made  its  censure  somewhat 
objectless.3  As  an  instrument  of  correction,  therefore, 
it  was  an  utter  failure.4  Luther  had  determined  to  rely 
upon  his  countrymen  for  support,  and  subsequent 
events  proved  the  wisdom  of  his  choice. 

Frederick  of  Saxony  did  not  waver  in  his  veneration 
for  the  Papacy  as  an  institution,  but  he  experienced 
some  misgivings  with  respect  to  the  justice  meted  out 
to  Luther  by  the  counsellors  of  the  Vatican.  A  letter 
which  he  wrote,  in  the  earlier  part  of  1520,  to  Pope  Leo 
distinctly  reveals  this  two-fold  mental  outlook.8  He 
was  not,  he  said,  directly  concerned  in  the  uprightness 
or  iniquity  of  Luther's  position,  in  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  his  doctrine  ;  these  were,  indeed,  matters  which 
belonged  to  another  tribunal  than  his.  But,  without 
attempting  a  decision  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  he 
declared  that  Luther  had  been  provoked,  not  so  much 
by  his  own  will  or  inclinations  as  by  the  attacks  of 
Dr.  Eck  and  certain  writers  in  Rome,  to  treat  of  the 
Papacy ;  and,  furthermore,  that  the  request  of  Luther 
to  be  shown,  by  means  of  Scripture,  wherein  he  had 

by  inserting  in  the  Bull  the  names  of  some  of  his  personal  enemies  for 
ecclesiastical  censure. 

1  Ibid.,  408  et  seq.  ;  Lindsay,  I,  249  el  seq. 

2  The  text  is  given  in  full  by  Roscoe,  IV,  App.  183,  12-22. 

3  Creighton,  VI,  159. 

4  In  the  Papal  Consistory,  Cardinal  Carvajal  had  described  Luther's 
appeal  to  a  General  Council  as  the  greatest  offence  of  all. — Pastor,  VII, 
399.  Uttered  by  him  who  had  been  the  chief  promoter  of  the  concilia- 
bulum  of  Pisa  the  remark  is  not  without  significance. 

6  Roscoe,  IV,  App.  185  :   Sleidan,  58. 


ATTITUDE   OF  FREDERICK  219 

erred,  was  likely  to  be  recognized  as  a  reasonable 
demand  in  Germany,  where  now  there  were  many 
learned  and  thoughtful  men.1 

The  Elector  throughout  the  dispute  maintained  the 
attitude  of  a  sincere  Catholic,  but  he  was  also  deter- 
mined to  be  loyal  to  his  country  and  his  duties  as  a 
ruler.2  Luther,  in  his  estimation,  was  a  professor  in  his 
University  and  possessed  some  claims  upon  him  in 
consequence  of  being  a  German  and  a  resident  in  the 
principality.  Under  these  circumstances,  he  felt  it 
incumbent  upon  him  to  afford  Luther  protection,  but 
only  so  far  as  to  guard  him  from  unjust  treatment  until 
a  properly  constituted  tribunal  should  have  given  him 
a  fair  trial.3  If  such  a  tribunal  had  been  held,  and  had 
condemned  Luther,  he  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
abandoned  the  friar  to  his  fate.  It  may  have  been, 
though  we  confess  that  this  is  merely  conjecture,  that 
Frederick,  like  so  many  others  of  that  era,  viewed  with 

1  Melanchthon  wrote,  8th  June,  1520,  to  John  Hess  of  Wratislaw  : 
"  Invitat  ultro  Martinum  Franciscus  de  Sickingen  Equitum  Germaniae 
rarum  decus.  Huttenus  ad  Ferdinandum  Caroli  fratrem  proficiscitur, 
viam  facturus  libertati,  per  maximos  Principes.  Quid  non  speremus 
igitur  ?  " — Epp.,  p.  325.  Cp.  the  opening  sentences  of  Luther's  ep.  to 
Tulich,  6th  October,  1520 — De  Wette,  I,  493.  The  latter  ep.  can  be 
read  in  an  excellent  English  translation  in  The  Letters  of  Martin  Luther, 
by  Margaret  A.  Currie,  London,  1908,  No.  47.  This  book  has  proved  most 
useful  to  me,  but  would  have  been  more  so  if  the  translation  had  included 
all  Luther's  available  correspondence,  and  not  merely  selected  letters. 

2  Consult  the  correspondence  between  the  Elector  and  Cardinal 
Cajetan  after  the  colloquy  at  Augsburg,  15 18 — Roscoe,  III,  Appdces. 
157,  158  ;  and  the  epp.  addressed  to  Frederick  by  Luther  and  the  Univ. 
of  Wittemberg  (29th  Nov.  and  23rd  Nov.,  15 18) — De  Wette,  I,  174-87; 
Sleidan,  29. 

8  Sleidan,  65b-6b,  gives  an  extract  from  the  response  of  Frederick  to 
the  papal  envoys,  4th  Nov.,  1520.  The  Elector  declared  that,  if  Luther 
were  convicted  by  Scriptural  proofs  and  solid  argument,  he  would 
withdraw  his  protection  from  the  friar  ;  and  he  added,  "  Au  reste  il 
espere  faire,  Dieu  aidant,  Pomce  d'vn  prince  de  1'Empire  &  d'vn  obeissant 
fils  de  l'eglise."  Aleander  was  very  favourably  impressed  by  Frederick 
on  this  occasion,  and  even  after  the  Elector  had  refused,  on  6th  Novem- 
ber, to  deliver  up  Luther  or  to  imprison  him,  he  did  not  lose  his  confidence 
in  the  prince — see  Pastor,  VII,  421-3. 


220        THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

disapproval  the  ever-growing  pretensions  of  the 
Papacy,  obtruded  as  they  were  by  astute  curialists 
upon  a  protesting  but  helpless  Christendom.  However, 
nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  this  prince,  at  no 
juncture  in  the  Lutheran  controversy  prior  to  1521,  ex- 
tended to  the  recalcitrant  Augustinian  actual  support 
or  such  recognition  and  approbation  as  would  strengthen 
him  in  his  resistance.1  Frederick,  therefore,  cannot  be 
said  to  have  encouraged  the  opposition  or  revolt  of 
Luther,  but,  when  he  saw  that  what  he  believed  to  be 
manifestly  unjust  proceedings  were  being  instituted 
against  the  man,  he  resolved  to  protect  him,  and,  later 
on,  if  he  did  not  embrace  Luther's  theological  opinions, 
he  certainly  became  kindly  disposed  towards  them. 

Luther  now  felt  convinced  that  a  deed  which  would 
express  his  absolute  persuasion  that  his  cause  wa9 
righteous  would  have  an  immense  effect  and  make  in- 
disputably clear  to  the  simplest  mind  the  matters  at 
issue  in  the  controversy.2  He  had  hitherto  stood  upon 
the  defensive,  but,  with  his  natural  sagacity,  he  per- 
ceived, that  if  he  continued  to  retain  this  attitude 
indefinitely,  he  would  engender  in  many  quarters  an 
impression  of  weakness.  He  had  strong  support  among 
his  countrymen,  and  he  desired  to  make  that  fact  plain 
to  all  the  world.8   Accordingly,  on  10th  December,  1520, 

1  Accusations  of  this  kind  were  frequently  uttered,  during  the  first 
year  of  the  dispute,  and  Luther  feared  greatly  that  they  would  have  the 
effect  of  turning  the  mind  of  the  Elector  against  him. — See  Luther's 
ep.  to  Spalatin,  15th  February,  15 18,  and  that  to  Frederick,  29th  Novem- 
ber, 1 5 18. — De  Wette,  I,  92,  186-7. 

a  Pastor,  VII,  415  ;  Sleidan,  67. 

•  Melanchthon  to  John  Hess,  Die  Mercurii  post  primam  Quadragesi- 
mam  Dominicam,  anno  MDXXI — Epp.,  pp.  328-31,  and  especially  p. 
328  :  "  Adhuc  autcm  &  spirat  &  floret  Martinus  ipso  etiam  indignante  & 
frendente  Leone,  quern  hactenus  fals6  putabant  omnia  posse.  Bullam 
Eccianam  apud  nos  nemo  probat,  praeter  eos,  qui  ventri  suo  potius  quam 
Euangelio  consultum  volunt.  Certe  nobis  ab  ea  nihil  prorsus  hactenus 
est  periculi,  etiamsi  tonantibus  &  promulgantibus  illam  Episcopis.  .  .  . 
Perissemus,  si  possent  Papistae,  quae  eis  ira  suggerit  :  dolent  diras 
Pontificias  parum  valuisse  :   Caesarianas  sperant  valituras." 


SAVONAROLA  AND   LUTHER  221 

he  solemnly  burned  the  papal  Decretal  Laws  and  the 
Bull  of  Excommunication  outside  the  Elster  Gate  at 
Wittemberg,  in  the  presence  of  a  large  concourse  of 
citizens,  professors,  and  students.1  It  was  no  less 
significant  that,  when  Luther  had  executed  his  act  of 
defiance  and  gone  away,  the  students  themselves, 
enthusiastic  Lutherans  all  of  them,  had  a  burning  of 
their  own,  in  which  they  destroyed  the  books  of  Eck, 
Emser,  and  others,  after  which  they  sang  a  Te  Deum. 
Young  Germany  was  manifestly  making  rapid  progress 
in  anti-papalism. 

The  situation  in  which  Luther  found  himself  in  1520 
resembled  in  many  particulars  that  of  Savonarola  at 
the  end  of  1497  and  the  beginning  of  1498  ;  yet,  un- 
doubtedly, some  of  the  circumstances  of  the  one  were 
very  different  from  those  of  the  other,  and  the  causes  of 
this  dissimilarity  must  be  sought  for  not  so  much  in  the 
characters  of  the  men  themselves,  though  these  pre- 
sented not  a  few  remarkable  contrasts,  as  in  the 
qualities  of  the  two  peoples  amongst  whom  they 
laboured.  It  is  true  that  there  were  no  analogies  be- 
tween the  character  of  Luther,  with  its  marvellous 
combination  of  prudence  and  audacity,  of  coolness  and 
temerity,  governed  by  commonsense  and  shrewdness, 
and  that  of  the  dreamy,  impulsive  Dominican  of 
Florence,  save  their  common  attribute  of  resolute 
courage.  Nevertheless,  the  reason  why  one  failed  in  his 
projects,  and  the  other,  to  a  certain  extent,  succeeded, 
will  be  discovered  by  a  consideration  of  the  circum- 
stances that  surrounded  each.  Among  the  Germans 
Huss's  life  and  teaching  had  not  been  without  effect  ; 

1  Luther,  in  an  ep.  to  Spalatin,  written  on  the  day  of  the  burning  of 
papal  documents,  says  of  it  :  "  Ut  videant  incendarii  Papistae  non  esse 
magnarum  virium  libros  exurere,  quos  confutare  non  possunt.  Haec 
erunt  nova." — Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  294.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  the 
Bull  which  Luther  burned  (Exsurge  Domine)  contained  only  a  conditional 
sentence  of  excommunication.  Luther's  final  condemnation  as  an  ex- 
communicated heretic  was  announced  by  the  Bull  Deed  Romanian  Pon- 
tificcm,  3rd  January,  1521 — see  Pastor,  VII,  415-6. 


222      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

the  dislike  of  papal  provisions  and  exactions,  and  of 
clerical  oppressions,  had  ceased  to  be  individual  or 
personal,  and  become  national ;  the  defects,  mental 
and  moral,  of  ecclesiastics  had,  for  a  considerable 
length  of  time,  formed  the  theme  of  sarcastic  diatribes  ; 
and  the  protracted  suit  of  Reuchlin,  recently  concluded 
in  favour  of  the  friars,  had  aroused  a  widespread  feeling 
of  resentment  against  what  was  esteemed  ecclesiastical 
tyranny.  But  other  additional  circumstances  conspired 
to  strengthen  the  Augustinian  of  Wittemberg  :  papal 
influences,  from  one  cause  or  another,  exerted  small 
power  within  the  borders  of  the  several  German  prin- 
cipalities ;  and  Luther,  at  this  period,  was  prudent 
enough  not  to  complicate  the  issue  of  his  struggle  by 
taking  a  share  in  the  political  affairs  or  parties  of  the 
time  ;  yet  he  evinced  an  intense  patriotism  among  a 
race  which  was  capable  of  being  moved  as  one  compact 
body  by  patriotic  sentiments.  But  the  paramount 
circumstance  in  Luther's  favour  was  the  firm  and 
reliable  protection  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  It  is 
possible  that  the  surmise  is  correct  that  Luther,  even 
in  spite  of  his  popularity,  would  have  shared  the  fate  of 
Savonarola,  if  he  had  not  had  Frederick's  protection.1 
The  peasant  friar  of  Wittemberg,  therefore,  for  whose 
revolt  the  way  had  been  prepared  long  before,  who 
possessed  the  support  of  faithful  friends  and  the  enthus- 
siastic  admiration  of  many  of  his  own  countrymen,  and 
never  lost  the  discreet  guidance  of  his  own  talent  of 
good-sense,  stood  in  the  midst  of  very  different  sur- 
roundings from  those  of  the  pathetically  sad  figure  of 
Savonarola,  betrayed  by  his  lonely  spiritual  grandeur 
and  even  by  the  mistakes  and  defects  of  his  own 
character. 

The  newly  crowned  Emperor,  Charles  V,  held  his  first 
Diet  at  Worms  in  January,  1521.  The  Lutheran 
question  was  not  the  only  important  matter  con- 
nected  with  ecclesiastical   affairs  in   Germany  which 

1  Lindsay,  I,  258-9. 


DEFECTION   OF   STAUPITZ  223 

required  the  attention  of  the  Diet.  But  Luther 
represented,  in  no  inferior  degree,  the  national  sentiment 
of  Germany,  and,  therefore,  when  he  was  summoned 
to  appear  before  this  assembly,  it  seemed  as  if  Germany 
herself  were  about  to  plead  through  him  for  her  rights. 
His  journey  to  Worms  partook  of  the  nature  of  a 
triumphal  progress.1  Everywhere  people  flocked  to  see 
the  German  who  was  so  intrepid  as  to  protest  against  the 
papal  oppression  of  the  German  race. 

Before,  however,  he  had  set  out  upon  his  journey  he 
observed  signs  of  defection  amongst  some  of  those  who 
had  been  his  sincerest  friends.  Staupitz  was  the  one 
whose  weakness  he  most  deplored.  Certainly,  it  ought 
to  have  been  enough  to  shake  the  courage  of  even  a 
Luther  to  have  discovered  in  such  as  Staupitz  a  readi- 
ness to  bow  before  the  storm  which  his  quondam  pupil 
was  defying.  Yet,  far  from  depreciating  the  truly  noble 
character  of  John  Staupitz  on  account  of  the  timidity 
he  displayed  at  this  juncture,  we  cannot  refrain  from 
indicating  some  of  the  reasons  which,  more  powerful 
in  Staupitz's  estimation  than  they  can  be  in  ours, 
induced  him  to  take  a  course  different  from  Luther's 
and  eventually  to  withhold  his  assistance  from  the 
Lutheran  Reformation.  Luther,  in  subsequent  years, 
detected  a  fundamental  distinction  between  Staupitz's 
views  of  righteousness  and  his  own,2  but  the  letter 
which  he  wrote  to  the  Vicar-General  on  9th  February, 
1 52 1,  afforded  no  token  of  a  consciousness  that  they 
thought  differently  regarding  evangelical  truth  ;  sur- 
prise, grief,  disappointment,  and  anxiety  appear  to  be 
the  emotions  that  dictated  his  epistle.3 

Imperceptibly  perhaps  to  Luther  himself  his  mental 
attitude  towards  long  established  ideals  of  church 
government  had  undergone  a  change.  To  very  many 
of  that  time,  though  they  were  extremely  desirous  of 

1  Kostlin,  I,  439-41. 
» Ibid.,  1, 79. 

3  See  Luthcri  Epp.,  fol.  303-5,  and  De  Wetle,  I,  556-8. 


224      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

religious  reform,  the  thought  of  its  being  accomplished 
in  one  portion  of  the  Church  and  not  in  another  was 
absolutely  inconceivable.1  Reform,  in  their  minds, 
never  signified  a  partial  or  local  thing  ;  it  had  to  do 
with  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  therefore  could  not  but 
be  general.  Such,  at  least,  was  the  conception  which 
Savonarola  and  all  the  Catholic  Reformers,  even  Luther 
himself  previous  to  1520,  formed  of  it.  If  they  despaired 
of  effecting  it  through  the  Papacy,  they  fell  back  upon 
the  conciliar  principle  and  nourished  their  longings  with 
confidence  in  some  future  General  Council.  For  the 
promotion  of  reform  by  one  or  other  of  these  authorities 
they  were  content  to  wait.  Meanwhile  they  persuaded 
themselves  that  their  share  of  the  great  work  consisted 
in  teaching  the  Gospel  and  proclaiming  the  truth,  as 
they  understood  it.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  part  of 
Luther's  address  to  the  Diet  of  Worms  which  proved 
most  incomprehensible  to  the  members  of  that  assembly 
was  his  equal  condemnation  of  conciliar  and  papal 
infallibility.* 

But,  in  truth,  with  Luther,  even  before  he  had  set 
out  for  Worms,  the  conception  of  new  ideals  had  taken 
place.  No  doubt,  they  were  still  in  an  inchoate  state, 
but  it  is  not  hard  to  detect  their  existence  or  to  trace 
their  peculiar  form  in  the  letters  and  works  he  wrote 
during  1520-1521.  Infallibility  he  had  not  ceased  to 
acknowledge,  but  for  him  now  it  resided  only  in  Holy 
Scripture.  To  the  Catholic  Church  he  still  adhered 
faithfully,  but  he  had  now  come  to  regard  it  as  centring 

1  After  the  Leipzig  Disputation,  Reuchlin,  probably  suspecting  the 
direction  in  which  Luther's  thoughts  would  lead  him,  sought  to  detach 
Melanchthon  from  the  side  of  the  Augustinian,  but  was  unsuccessful — 
Kostlin,  I,  285-7. 

8  Ibid.,  I,  452.  In  the  censure  on  Luther  pronounced  by  the  Sorbonne, 
15th  April,  1 521,  his  rejection  of  the  decisions  of  General  Councils  is 
emphasized  as  peculiarly  reprehensible — Bulaeus,  VI,  117. 

From  the  ep.  which  Luther  wrote  to  the  Elector  on  25th  January,  1521, 
it  would  appear  as  if  he  had  not  yet  begun  to  entertain  the  thought  of  a 
reformation  of  the  German  nation  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
Church — see  Luthcri  Epp.,  fol.  301-3. 


LUTHER  AT  WORMS  225 

in  Christ  alone  and  its  visible  corporation  as  the  aggre- 
gate of  the  national  churches  of  which  each  was  to  a 
large  extent  independent  of  the  other. 

It  may  have  been  that  Staupitz  knew  very  little 
about  the  changes  that  Luther's  ideals  were  undergoing. 
But,  even  if  he  discerned  them,  he  did  not  concede  to 
them  his  approbation.  To  him,  indeed,  it  appeared  as 
if  the  course  of  Luther  ran  in  the  direction,  not  of  reform, 
but  of  revolt.  He  was  unable  and  unwilling  to  advance 
as  rapidly  as  the  younger  brother  of  his  order,  and  he 
dreaded,  not  entirely  for  himself,  but  rather  for  the 
Christian  Faith,  the  dangers  of  the  way. 

Two  incidents  calculated  to  have  inspired  Luther  with 
fear  occurred  to  him  whilst  he  was  on  the  road  to  Worms. 
One  was  his  reception  of  the  news  that  the  Emperor 
had  published  an  edict  commanding  all  who  possessed 
Luther's  books  to  deliver  them  up.  An  ordinance  of 
such  a  kind  virtually  condemned  them.  As  he  had  been 
relying  on  the  Emperor  to  grant  him  a  fair  trial,  the 
news  was  not  only  disconcerting  but  terrifying.1 
Naturally,  Luther  felt  somewhat  dismayed,  but  he 
quickly  recovered  himself,  for  he  assured  Spalatin, 
in  an  epistle  forwarded  from  Frankfort  on  14th  April2: 

I  learn  that  the  Emperor  Charles's  mandate  has 
been  published  in  order  to  fill  me  with  fear.  But 
Christ  lives,  and  we  will  enter  Worms  in  spite  of  all 
the  gates  of  hell  and  the  evil  powers  of  the  air. 

The  second  came  from  Spalatin  himself,  who,  desiring 
to  fulfil  the  duty  of  a  friend  (but  with  ill-timed  solici- 
tude), sent  a  messenger  to  Luther  to  remind  him  of  the 
fate  of  Huss.3  But  with  dogged  courage,  the  Augus- 
tinian  resolved  that  he  would  enter  Worms,  no  matter 

1  Kostlin,  I,  441-2. 

*  Lutheri  Epp.,  fol.  315. 

*  Glapio,  the  Emperor's  confessor,  endeavoured,  under  the  guise  of 
friendship,  to  induce  Luther  to  take  refuge  with  Franz  von  Sickingen  at 
Ebernburg.  Kostlin,  I,  443,  says  this  was  a  ruse  to  exhaust  the  period  of 
tine  within  which  tl"  luct  held  good. 


226         THE   BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

what  might  be  the  destiny  that  awaited  him.  When,  at 
length,  to  the  surprise  of  many,  he  arrived  at  Worms 
(16th  April),  the  first  words  which  he  uttered  as  he 
stepped  down  from  the  travelling  wagon,  "  God  will  be 
with  me,"  revealed  the  secret  of  his  courage. 

On  the  following  day,  he  had  his  first  audience  of  the 
Emperor  and  Diet.  He  was  nervous  and  awkward 
and  spoke  with  a  subdued  voice.  His  bearing  and 
personal  appearance  seemed  altogether  so  inferior  that 
Charles  could  hardly  believe  him  to  be  the  author  of  the 
notorious  books  in  question.1 

Johann  von  der  Ecken  (a  learned  person,  but  not  to  be 
identified  with  the  professor  of  Ingolstadt),  the  official 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Trier,  put  two  propositions  to 
Luther  :  whether  he  would  acknowledge  that  the  books 
which  were  lying  on  the  table  before  Ecken  were  his  own 
compositions,  and,  if  they  were,  whether  he  would 
retract  the  statements  they  contained.  When  their 
titles  had  been  read  out  to  him,  Luther  replied  to  the 
first  proposition  in  the  affirmative,  but  requested  time 
for  consideration  before  answering  the  second.  He  was 
granted  until  the  next  day. 

On  the  following  day,  Thursday,  18th  April,  Luther 
stood  before  a  crowded  Reichstag.  Hesitation  and 
timidity  had  now  vanished  from  his  demeanour. 
Witnesses  relate  that,  whilst  he  displayed  modesty  and 
reverence  towards  the  august  assembly  in  which  he 
found  himself,  Luther  spoke  so  distinctly  and  boldly 
in  his  own  defence,  and  explained  his  position  so  clearly, 
as  to  extort  profound  admiration  even  from  his  oppo- 
nents.1 Whatever  opinions  may  be  held  regarding 
Luther  himself,  no  one  can  deny  that  his  speech  on  this 
occasion  reflects  courage,  prudence,  sagacity,  piety,  and 
unwavering  fidelity  to  what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth.1 
It  was  impossible  for  him,  he  declared,  to  retract  un- 

1  Ibid.,  I,  446. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  454  ;  Lindsay,  I,  292-3. 

8  Kostlin,  I,  449-51,  give9  it  in  an  abridged  form. 


LUTHER'S  STANDARD  OF  AUTHORITY  227 

conditionally  the  statements  in  his  books  without 
condemning  some  truths  which  all  Christians  received. 
Conformably  with  their  contents,  therefore,  he  divided 
his  books  into  three  classes.  In  one  he  placed  those  in 
which  he  taught  only  evangelical  doctrine ;  these, 
obviously,  he  would  not  retract.  In  another,  he  put 
those  that  treated  of  the  Papacy  and  papal  dogmas  ; 
these  he  could  not  abjure,  because  he  believed  that  the 
Papacy  was  exerting  a  baneful  tyranny  over  the  souls 
and  bodies  of  Christians  by  means  of  its  encroachments 
and  decrees  which  set  at  nought  the  clear  teaching  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  statements  of  the  Fathers.  A 
recantation  on  his  part  of  the  opinions  which  he  had 
published  in  accordance  with  the  testimony  of  these 
authorities,  especially  if  it  were  made  at  the  instance  of 
the  Emperor  and  princes,  would  be  conducive  to  an  aug- 
mentation of  the  same  tyranny  and  a  further  severance 
from  true  Christianity.  The  third  class  of  his  books,  he 
said,  were  those  in  which  he  had  maintained  his  views 
against  personal  enemies.  He  admitted  that  sometimes 
he  had  been  too  vehement,  but  he  had  never  claimed  to 
be  a  saint  :  he  was  only  a  man  striving  to  vindicate 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  against  what  he  was  persuaded 
was  ungodliness  and  wrong.  He  could  not  repudiate 
these  books,  because  they  contained  the  truth,  so  far 
as  he  knew  it.  Luther  added  that,  if  he  were  convicted 
of  erroneous  doctrines  in  his  books,  he  would  be  the 
first  to  cast  them  into  the  fire  ;  but  he  pleaded  that  only 
such  arguments  for  or  against  them  as  were  drawn  from 
the  prophetical  or  evangelical  books  of  Holy  Scripture 
should  be  considered  valid.  If  he  were  accused  of 
raising  disturbances  among  Christians  by  means  of  his 
doctrines  he  would  remind  the  assembly  that  this  was 
at  all  times  the  normal  consequence  of  teaching  the 
word  of  God,  according  to  the  saying  of  Christ,  "  I 
am  not  come  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword,"  and  this,  in 
fact,  was  the  direct  road  to  a  true  and  lasting  peace. 
Luther  declared  that  he  hoped  the  reign  of  the  young 


228         THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

and  noble  Emperor  might  have  an  auspicious  beginning 
and  a  fortunate  continuance,  and  that  there  was  nothing 
which  would  contribute  more  to  this  happy  result  than 
the  fear  of  God. 

To  most  of  the  members  of  the  Diet  this  reply  was 
unacceptable.  Ecken  again  addressed  Luther  and 
pointed  out  that  his  books  contained  some  of  the  errors 
of  Wycliffe,  Huss,  and  other  heretics,  which  the  Popes 
and  the  Council  of  Constance  had  condemned.  Once 
more  he  demanded,  if  Luther  would  recant  these 
doctrines,  for,  as  to  the  others,  the  Emperor  was 
prepared  to  omit  them  from  present  consideration.  It 
was  then  that  Luther,  in  a  brief  reply,  proclaimed  his 
disbelief  in  the  infallibility  of  both  Pope  and  Council, 
whereby  he  enunciated  a  principle  with  which  few,  if 
any,  of  the  princes  could  agree.  He  himself  was 
perfectly  cognizant  of  the  novelty  of  the  opinion  he  had 
uttered,  for,  as  a  man  who  has  taken  up  a  position 
which  he  is  convinced  will  be  generally  regarded  as 
untenable,  Luther  concluded  his  reply  with  the  ex- 
clamation, "  Ich  kann  nicht  anders,  hier  stehe  ich, 
Gott  helf  mir.    Amen." 

Some  further  interchange  of  arguments  between 
Ecken  and  Luther  followed,  the  former  asserting  and 
the  latter  denying  the  infallibility  of  General  Councils. 
But  Charles  had  no  intention  of  permitting  a  theolo- 
logical  disputation  to  develop  in  the  Reichstag,  and 
therefore  cut  the  debate  short. 

To  Luther  his  dismissal  came  as  a  welcome  relief, 
and  the  cry  that  he  uttered  as  he  entered  his  lodging, 
"  Ich  bin  hindurch,  ich  bin  hindurch,"  signified  the 
relaxation  of  the  strain  to  which  he  had  been  subjected 
during  these  two  days.  At  last,  his  situation  was  exactly 
defined.  He  now  realized  that  there  was  nothing  more 
to  hope  for  from  the  Emperor  ;  the  Pope  had  already 
failed  him.  Save  for  the  personal  friends  that  he  had 
around  him,  he  stood  alone,  a  notorious  heretic,  already 
banned  by  the  Head  of  the  Church  and  soon  to  be  put 


THE  OPPOSING  CREEDS  229 

also  to  the  ban  of  the  Empire.  For  the  time  being,  he 
experienced  an  actually  comforting  peacefulness  in  the 
clear  comprehension  of  his  position.1 

On  the  morrow,  19th  April,  the  Emperor  Charles 
delivered  judgment  upon  the  Lutheran  affair,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  affirmed,  with  an  explicitness  such  as  he 
never  again  manifested  publicly,  his  unalterable 
attachment  to  the  traditions  of  his  ancestors.  This 
remarkable  pronouncement,  so  momentous  for  the 
subsequent  religious  history  of  western  Europe,  appears 
to  have  emanated  from  the  Emperor  himself.  It 
expressed  his  most  intimate  convictions  ;  it  was,  in 
fact,  his  confession  of  faith.2  The  German  princes 
present  at  the  Diet  felt  that  its  tone  was  more  arrogant 
than  was  altogether  agreeable  to  themselves,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid  perceiving  that  no  small  part  of 
what  seemed  to  them  haughty  dogmatism  was  simply 
the  candid  piety  and  sincerity  of  a  man  who,  once  in 
his  lifetime,  laid  aside  his  natural  reticence  to  bare  his 
soul  before  the  world.  Rarely,  indeed,  has  history 
furnished  an  episode  so  capable  of  rousing  the  imagina- 
tion as  the  Lutheran  incident  at  Worms.  An  accused 
peasant  friar  comes  face  to  face,  for  the  first  and  only 
time,  with  a  royal  judge  ;  and  the  two,  the  judge  and 
the  defendant,  give  utterance  to  adverse  declarations 
of  belief  which  foreshadow  the  struggles  of  subsequent 
ages.  Their  minds  move  in  different  planes  of  thought, 
but  neither  fears  to  speak  with  candour  and  integrity, 
when  his  innate  rectitude  impels  him,  even  though  con- 
scious of  disapprobation  among  the  listening  bystan- 
ders. For  Luther's  "  Ich  kann  nicht  anders,  hier  stehe 
ich,  Gott  helf  mir,"  finds  its  noblest  counterpart  in 
Charles's  "  I  have  resolved  to  stake  upon  this  cause  all 
my  dominions,  my  friends,  my  body  and  blood,  my 
life  and  soul." 


1  Kostlin,  I,  452-4. 

'Armstrong,  Charles   I',  I,  70-1  ;    Lindsay,  T,  264. 


230        THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  LUTHER 

With  the  delivery  of  these  two  antagonistic  opinions 
ended  Luther's  career  as  a  Catholic  reformer.  He  and 
those  who  espoused  his  cause  had  still  before  them  a 
groat  work  to  accomplish,  in  which  they  were  destined 
to  attain  a  large  measure  of  success.  But  it  was  no 
longer  possible  that  it  could  be  a  Catholic  reformation. 
The  issue  of  the  Bull  of  Excommunication  and  Luther's 
bold  act  in  burning  it  publicly,  his  speech  before  the 
Diet,  and  Charles's  declaration,  combined  to  give  the 
movement  for  the  betterment  of  religion  a  new 
direction  in  Germany  and  to  originate,  during  subse- 
quent years,  the  formation  of  new  theories  of  church 
government  in  that  country.  It  must  be  noted, 
however,  no  rupture  in  the  German  Church  had  as  yet 
taken  place  when  the  Pope  prevented  the  meeting  of 
the  German  States  to  deliberate  on  the  condition  of  the 
Church  in  their  dominions,  as  the  Diet  of  Spires  (1524) 
had  proposed,  and  endeavoured,  through  his  nuncio,  to 
establish  a  league  of  German  princes  favourable  to  his 
own  interests.  Here  is  to  be  found  the  earliest  cause  of 
divisions  within  the  Church  in  Germany.1  The  Peasants' 
War  of  the  following  year  furnished  other  serious  ob- 
stacles to  the  scheme  of  a  national  reformation,  and 
destroyed  finally  and  completely  the  hopes,  which 
Luther  had  carried  with  him  to  Worms,  of  a  united 
Germany  awakening  to  the  glorious  work  of  restoring 
evangelical  truth  and  Christian  piety  within  her 
borders.* 

1  Lindsay,  I,  324. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  335  ;  cp.  Strauss,  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  Eng.  trans.,  ch.  VII, 
and  Chauffour-Kestner,  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  Imperial  Poet  and  Orator, 
Eng.  trans,  by  Archibald  Young,  Edinburgh,  1863,  pp.  99-1 10. 


CHAPTER  IX 

OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE 
MOVEMENT  TOWARDS   CATHOLIC   REFORM 

The  most  immediate  effect  of  Erasmus's  edition  of  the 
New  Testament  was  the  impetus  it  gave  to  biblical 
studies.1  At  several  Universities  the  New  Testament 
constituted  the  theme  of  public  lectures  which  found 
enthusiastic  audiences.'  As  early  as  September,  15 16, 
Wolfgang  Kopfel,  better  known  by  his  literary  title 
Fabricius  Capito,  began  to  lecture  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  as  corrected  and  annotated  by  Erasmus,  and 
from  that  time  forward  continued  to  deliver  sermons 
and  prelections  upon  various  portions  of  the  New 
Testament.  But  Capito,  when  he  informed  the  great 
scholar  of  this  new  direction  of  his  activities  (ep.  of 
2nd  September,  1516,  from  Basle),  at  the  same  time 
begged  him  to  refrain,  for  the  future,  from  too  candid 
an  expression  of  opinion  upon  superstitions,  penances, 
prescriptions  of  a  fixed  number  of  prayers  to  be  recited, 
"  and  the  commonly  observed  things  which  have  been 
brought  into  public  usage  in  our  age  by  credulity  or 
simple  faith."* 

1  See  the  epp.  of  John  Watson,  Cambridge,  August,  and  of  Glareanus, 
Basle,  September,  1516 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  i6id,  197D  ;  Allen,  II,  315, 
and  Nichols,  II,  386.  The  Elector  Frederick  and  Duke  George  of  Saxony, 
as  well  as  the  Bishop  of  Paris,  appreciated  all  Erasmus's  works — Eras. 
Op.,  Ill,  272D,  444A,  1592c,  170B.  Cp.  also  ibid.,  1598B-D,  235B-E,  1813A, 
etc. 

1  Bullock  was  lecturing  on  the  Gospels  at  Cambridge  in  the  spring  of 
1517 — Ibid.,  1558B. 

8  Ibid.,  1567B-D. 

*3* 


232      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

From  this  letter  it  will  be  seen  that,  though  conscious 
of  many  things  amiss  in  the  lives  and  religious  ideas 
of  contemporary  Christians,  those  who  then  were 
aiming  at  imparting  the  knowledge  of  Christ  to  their 
own  generation  preferred  to  leave  what  they  regarded 
as  errors  to  be  eradicated  by  the  growth  of  the  truth  ; 
a  mode  of  procedure  which  was  characteristic  of  the 
Catholic  reformers.  Even  Erasmus  adopted  it  as  a  rule 
of  his  conduct,  but  he  did  not  always  permit  it  to  ham- 
per his  freedom  of  writing.1  In  this  respect  he  proved 
himself  a  true  humanist. 

On  26th  February,  1517,  Erasmus  sent  as  his  reply  to 
Capito  an  epistle  which  deserves  special  notice.' 
Acuteness  in  discerning  the  general  tendency  of  con- 
temporary thought  was,  at  all  times,  a  distinctive 
quality  of  the  great  scholar,  and,  it  is  true,  he  exhibits  it 
here  in  a  marked  degree.  The  particular,  however, 
which  imparts  more  than  ordinary  interest  to  this 
letter  is  the  note  of  joyous  exultation  with  which 
Erasmus  heralds  the  approach  of  an  era  when  the 
desires  that  he  and  his  friends  were  harbouring  should 
be  attained.  But  when  the  actual  events  of  1517  and 
the  immediately  succeeding  years  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration the  jubilant  announcement  seems  to  us  not 
a  little  premature. 

The  accusations  Erasmus  made  against  the  scholastic 
theologians  of  his  day  are  corroborated  both  by  the 
terms  he  employed  in  an  epistle  to  the  Bishop  of  Paris, 
dated  14th  February,  1517,3  and  by  the  later  experiences 
of  the  person  he  therein  recommended  (Henry  Loriti 
of  Glarus)  to  the  Bishop  for  an  academic  position  in  the 
great  French  University.* 

It  is  not  a  little  curious  that  the  first  serious  opponent 

1  Observe  the  remark  of  Beatus  Rhenanus  to  Erasmus,  ep.  of  ioth 
May,  1 517 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  i6o6e,  and  Erasmus's  reply  to  Caesarius,  ep. 
of  1 6th  August,  1 5 17 — ibid.,  1622D-F. 

'Ibid.,  i86r-i89D. 

8  Ibid.,  232D-F. 

*  Ep.  of  Glareanus  to  Erasmus,  5th  Augt.,  15 17 — ibid.,  162 11. 


LEF&VRE  AND  ERASMUS      233 

whom  the  Dutch  scholar  encountered  should  have 
happened  to  have  been  a  man  for  whom  he  never  failed 
t<  express  a  profound  regard — a  man,  moreover,  who 
deserved  it.  Whilst  the  dispute  lasted,  it  was  a  warm 
one,  and,  at  times,  even  threatened  to  become  bitter. 
It  arose  out  of  a  comment  of  Erasmus's  on  a  note  which 
Lefevre  had  appended  to  a  passage  in  his  Commentaries 
on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (Heb.  ii.  7).  The  French 
scholar  had  emphasized,  perhaps  too  strongly,  the 
reading  of  the  original  Hebrew  of  the  quotation  from 
Psalm  viii.1  Erasmus,  on  the  other  hand,  preferred  to 
follow  the  Greek  and  to  translate  it  "for  a  little  time 
lower  than  the  angels."2 

Friends  and  admirers  of  both  disputants  took  care 
that  no  ill-will  should  arise  between  them.3  But,  indeed, 
Erasmus  and  Lefevre  entertained  friendly  sentiments 
towards  one  another.  Even  in  the  heat  of  controversy 
they  expressed  their  mutual  esteem.*  There  is,  however, 
reason  to  think  that  the  Frenchman  felt  hurt  at  a 
criticism  which  Erasmus  had  not  intended  to  be 
offensive,  and  that  this  circumstance  furnished  some 
cause  for  anxiety  to  their  friends.  We  find  abundant 
proofs  that  they  continued  to  have  a  high  opinion  of 
each  other  in  subsequent  years,  and  it  is  therefore  quite 
unnecessary  here  to  examine  minutely  into  the  particu- 
lars of  their  disagreement.8 

1  See  Drummond's  excellent  remark,  I,  324. 

2  See  Eras.  Op.,  IX,  17-66  (Apologia  ad  Jac.  Fabrum,  dated  5th 
Augt.,  1 517),  to  which  is  subjoined  the  Disputatio  of  Lefevre  that  Eras- 
mus was  endeavouring  to  refute  (ibid.,  67-79).  ^n  Psalm  vm-  5>  our 
Revised  Version  has  a  remarkably  different  translation  from  that  of  our 
Prayer-book  and  Authorized  Versions,  one,  moreover,  which  accords 
better  with  Lefevre's  judgment  than  Erasmus's.  Consult  the  curious 
note  that  Dr.  Franz  Delitsch  gives  on  this  passage—  Biblical  Com- 
mentary on  the  Paslms,  Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1871,  vol.  I,  p.  154. 

3  Cp.  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1616c,  1617A,  1622B,  1634B. 

4  See  Lefevre's  ep.  to  Erasmus,  23rd  Oct.,  1514 — ibid.,  18120D  ; 
and  the  kindly  greeting  of  Lefevre  conveyed  to  Erasmus  by  Bude,  Nov., 
1 5 16 — ibid.,  21  ib.    Cp.  also  Eras.  Op.,  IX,  80. 

8  Erasmus  could  speak  of  no  man  more  highly  than  he  does  of  Lefevre 


234      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

A  few  years  later  Erasmus  became  involved  in  a  most 
perilous  and  vexatious  quarrel  with  Edward  Lee,  with 
whom  in  15 17  he  was  on  terms  of  amity.1  But,  before 
this  momentous  dispute  had  reached  importance, 
Erasmus  had  lost  his  best  friend  and  the  movement 
towards  Catholic  Reform  one  of  its  earliest  promoters, 
Colet. 

In  the  last  mentioned  letter  which  the  Dean  sent  to 
Erasmus,  that  of  20th  October,  15 14,  he  had  told  his 
friend  what  a  harassed  life  he  was  leading,  and  that  he 
longed  to  withdraw  into  retirement  among  the  Carthu- 
sians. Truly  the  time  had  now  arrived  when  tranquillity 
was,  for  him,  impossible  of  attainment  as  long  as  he 
continued  to  be  Dean  of  St.  Paul's ;  even  his  exercise 
of  decanal  privileges  and  duties  was  being  straitened. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  realize  his  position.  The  path  of 
a  reformer,  however  honourable  and  frank,  however 
actuated  by  high  principles  he  be,  is  a  hard  one.  Colet 
was  surrounded  by  foes.  His  doctrines,  as  novel  to  his 
ecclesiastical  subordinates,  equals,  and  superiors,  as 
they  were  substantially  true  in  accordance  with  the 
teaching  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  dictates  of  a  well 
informed,  devout  mind,  raised  a  hostile  spirit  against 
him.  But  when  to  these  were  added  his  open  abhor- 
rence of  the  evil  lives  of  the  clergy,  their  corrupt 
practices,2  their  culpable  negligence  of  duties,  and  their 

throughout  his  Annotationes  (see,  in  the  edition  of  1527,  p.  325  beg.,  etc.), 
even  at  a  time  when  it  was  somewhat  dangerous  to  do  so.  Lefcvre,  no 
doubt,  did  not  in  later  years  refer  to  Erasmus  in  his  biblical  works  ; 
but  no  stress  can  be  laid  upon  this  circumstance,  because  it  never  was  his 
practice  to  allude  to  modern  writers,  and,  besides,  his  books  were  of  a 
kind  that  precluded  such  references.  The  Frenchman,  after  the  dispute, 
avoided  textual  criticism  as  much  as  possible. 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1656B-C 

*  He  displayed  his  undisguised  contempt  for  the  relic-mongering  so 
prevalent  in  that  age,  during  a  pilgrimage  which  he  made,  in  the  com- 
pany of  Erasmus,  to  the  shrine  of  St.  Thomas  a  Becket  at  Canterbury, 
probably  in  15 13 — see  Erasmi  Colloquiorum  .  .  .  Opus  Aureutn, 
Londini,  1676,  pp.  267-75.  For  an  excellent  English  translation  of  the 
Colloquies,  consult  N.  Bailey's  version,  edited  with  notes  by  the  Rev.  E. 


COLET'S  CHARACTER  235 

lack  of  suitable  qualities  for  the  Christian  ministry,  and 
his  attempts  to  institute  reforms,  the  hatred  which  he 
had  aroused  became  unappeasable.  Under  these 
circumstances,  that  Colet  should  look  forward  to  the 
peace  of  retirement  from  the  deanery  is  not  surprising. 
Yet  he  retained  the  office,  possibly  because,  though  his 
inclination  pointed  out  the  easier  course,  his  conscien- 
tious scruples  forbade  him  to  desert,  on  account  of  its 
difficulty,  a  position  which  presented  him  with  nu- 
merous opportunities  of  doing  good.1 

Colet's  own  letter  to  Erasmus,  20th  June,  1516, 
reveals,  even  more  plainly  than  anything  his  friends 
could  say  of  him,  the  nature  of  the  man  himself  and  the 
character  of  his  ideals  and  aspirations2: — 

I  comprehend  what  thou  writest  concerning  the 
New  Testament.  The  copies  of  thy  new  edition  are 
bought  here  eagerly,  and  read  everywhere.  Many 
approve  of  thy  studies,  and  are  astonished  at  them  ; 
but  some  disapprove  and  censure  them,  and  say  those 
things  which  are  in  the  letter  that  Martin  Dorpius 
wrote  to  thee.  The  latter,  however,  belong  to  the 
class  of  theologians  whom  thou  hast  described  in  thy 
Moria,  and  other  places,  not  less  truly  than  amus- 
ingly. To  be  praised  by  these  is  blame,  to  be  blamed 
the  highest  praise.   .  .  . 

Thou  hast  done  well  in  writing  the  De  Institutione 
Principis  Christiani.  Would  that  Christian  princes 
followed  thy  instructions  !  Their  follies  turn  every- 
thing upside  down.      I  am  anxious  to  have  that  little 

Johnson,  M.A.,  in  three  volumes,  London,  1900.  The  portion  referred 
to  here  is  in  vol.  II,  pp.  234-244. 

1  Erasmus  (Op.,  Ill,  136E  -,  Allen,  II,  246)  writing  to  Ammonius,  5th 
June,  1 5 16,  alludes  to  the  Christ-like  spirit  of  Colet  in  requiting  good  for 
evil  to  one  who  had  been  formerly  his  friend  but  took  the  side  of  his  foes. 
Allen,  in  an  article  in  the  English  Historical  Review,  XVII  (1902),  pp. 
305-6,  maintains  that  this  person  was  Achbp.  Warham  and  that  the 
unkindness  he  had  shown  to  the  Dean  was  his  confirmation,  on  grounds 
of  prudence,  of  a  sentence  of  temporary  suspension  from  preaching 
which  Bp.  Fitzjames  had  pronounced  in.  15 13  against  Colet. 

■  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1572-3. 


236     OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

book,  because  I  know  well  that,  like  everything  thou 
doest,  it  will  go  forth  from  thee  perfect.   .   .  . 

Our  friend  Canterbury,  when  I  was  with  him  a  few 
days  ago,  spoke  much  of  thee,  and  yearned  for  thy 
presence.  He,  now  freed  from  all  business  affairs, 
dwells  in  a  happy  state  of  leisure.   .   .   . 

They  who  love  the  Scriptures  will  receive  valuable 
help  in  reading  them,  if  thou  wilt  explain  the  mean- 
ing ;  and  by  so  doing  thou  wilt  bestow  immortality 
upon  thy  name.  Immortality,  do  I  say?  The  name 
of  Erasmus  truly  shall  never  be  forgotten,  but  thou 
wilt  confer  eternal  glory  on  it,  and,  as  thy  work  is 
for  Jesus,  thou  wilt  prepare  for  thyself  everlasting 
life.   .   .   . 

If  thou  wilt  permit  me,  I  will  attach  myself  to  thy 
side,  and  show  myself  thy  pupil  even  by  learning 
Greek,  for,  though  I  am  so  advanced  in  years  as  to  be 
almost  an  old  man,  I  remember  that  Cato,  when  an 
old  man,  learned  Greek  literature,  and  I  remark  that 
even  thou,  who  art  applying  thyself  to  learning 
Hebrew,  art  of  the  same  age  as  myself. 

Love  me,  as  thou  dost.  If  thou  returnest  to  us, 
thou  wilt  find  me  most  devoted  to  thee.      Farewell. 

Written  from  the  country  of  Stepney,  in  the  house 
of  my  mother,  who  still  lives  and  grows  old  beauti- 
fully, and  makes  pleasant  and  kindly  mention  of  thee. 

On  the  day  of  St.  Edward,  the  Feast  of  his 
Translation.1 

So  much  was  Colet  affected  by  the  extraordinary 
progress  which  Erasmus  had  made  in  the  comprehen- 
sion of  Holy  Scripture  that  he  began  seriously  to  study 
Greek  in  the  hope  of  attaining  a  like  success.  Accord- 
ingly, Thomas  More  wrote  to  Erasmus  on  22nd  Sep- 
tember2:— 

Colet  is  now  working  hard  at  Greek  (graccatar 
strenue),    employing   for  that   purpose  the  uncertain 

1  The  Leyden  editor  has  assumed  that  this  date  signified  13th  October. 
Seebohm  (Oxford  Ref.,  p.  397)  has  shown,  however,  that  20th  June  wzs 
that  intended.    Nichols  (II,  288)  and  Allen  agree  with  this  conclusion. 

*  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1553c.  For  the  date,  6ee  Nichols,  II,  393,  and  Allen, 
",  347- 


COLET'S   DECLINE   IN   HEALTH         237 

labours  of  my  Clement.  I  believe  he  will  continue 
and  succeed,  especially  if  thou  givest  him,  from 
Louvain,  some  spurring  on — though,  perhaps,  it 
might  be  better  to  leave  him  to  the  suggestion  of  his 
own  will.  As  thou  knowest,  he  is  now  wont  to  resist, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  those  who  are  trying  to 
persuade  him  to  do  what  he  himself  most  desires. 

It  is  evident  that  the  long,  unceasing  struggle,  in 
which  Colet  had  been,  for  so  many  years,  engaged,  was 
producing  its  natural  effect  ;  his  disposition,  at  one 
time  cheerful  and  equable,  was  weakening  into  a 
state  of  irritability  and  obstinacy.  That  quality  which 
had  made  him  the  restorer,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  of 
a  general  study  of  the  Bible,  and,  to  a  marked  extent, 
the  founder  of  modern  biblical  exposition,  viz.,  his 
reluctance  to  accept  anything  merely  on  authority,  had 
now  degenerated  into  an  indiscriminative  combat ive- 
ness.  The  end  was  not  far  off.  From  this  time  on,  his 
letters,  and  the  references  to  him  made  by  others  in 
their  correspondence,  reveal  distinctly  that  Colet  now 
began  to  decline  gradually  in  bodily  health.  He  grew 
less  able  to  endure  what,  previously,  he  would  have 
passed  without  notice,  and  occasionally  even  exhibited 
peevishness  towards  his  friends.  For  instance,  about 
the  end  of  May,  1517,  Erasmus  sent  a  copy  of  Reuchlin's 
Dc  Arte  Cabbalistica  to  Bishop  Fisher  as  a  present,  but 
omitted  to  send  one  to  Colet,  who  thereupon  wrote  to 
his  Dutch  friend  declaring  his  displeasure  at  Erasmus's 
practice  of  saluting  him  in  other  men's  letters,  instead 
of  writing  direct  to  him.  Colet  admitted  that  the 
present  to  the  Bishop  had  come  into  his  hands,  and  that 
he  had  detained  and  read  it.  He  then  concluded  with 
the  expression  of  a  wish  that  showed  the  real  nature  of 
the  man 1 : — 

O  Erasmus,   of  books  and  knowledge  there  is  no 
end,  and  nothing  is  better  for  this  short  life  than  to 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  i66od-f.  Cp.  Fisher's  ep.  to  Erasmus — ibid.,  1812F. 
Allen,  II,  598,  and  Nichols,  II,  569  and  596,  give  date  of  both  epp.  as 
June  or  July,  1 5 1 7.    Consult  also  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1630c  and  1641E. 


238      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

live  hollly  and  purely,  and  daily  to  attend  to  the  puri- 
fication, illumination,  and  perfection  of  ourselves. 
These  things  Reuchlin's  Pythagorica  and  Cabbalistica 
claim  to  give ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  we  will  attain  them 
only  by  the  fervent  love  and  imitation  of  Jesus. 
Leaving  all  roundabout  ways,  let  us  seek  truth  by  the 
shortest  road.     That  is  my  earnest  desire. 

The  above  epistle  derives  no  small  part  of  its  interest 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  last  one  of  Colet's  which  is 
now  extant.1 

At  this  particular  time  no  name  stood  higher  than  that 
of  John  Colet  ;  no  character  commanded  profounder 
reverence.  He  was  not  a  traveller.  So  far  as  we  know, 
he  carried  on  no  extensive  correspondence  with  the 
scholars  of  his  day,  either  English  or  foreign  ;  nor  did 
he  publish  any  works  of  value  to  humanists,  legists, 
literati,  or  even  theologians.  He  was  not  a  politician 
or  diplomatist ;  he  never  sought  to  exert  influence  over 
the  powerful  and  great  in  public  affairs,  albeit  King 
Henry  extended  to  him  privileges  seldom  granted  by 
royalty.  If  these  things  be  carefully  considered  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  fame  which  he  acquired  came  to  him 
partly  from  his  reputation  for  holiness  and  partly  from 
the  importance  of  his  works  to  the  cause  of  religion.1 

Colet  was  as  incapable  of  subterfuge  as  of  compliance 
with  what  was  expedient  rather  than  what  he  believed 
to  be  right ;   he  could  not  imitate  Erasmus's  outward 

1  If  we  except  the  commendatory  letter,  addressed  to  Wolsey  on  18th 
December,  15 17,  which  he  gave  to  John  Rightwise,  surmaster  of  his 
jchool — Lupton,  Colet,  p.  226. 

•Francois  Deloin,  towards  the  end  of  15 16,  declared  his  affection  for 
his  former  fellow-student  at  Orleans,  Colet,  "  a  man  remarkable  alike  for 
his  learning  and  the  purity  of  his  life  " — ep.  to  Erasmus,  Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
182B;  see  the  ep.  of  CEcolampadius,  26th  March,  15 17,  which  contains  an 
allusion  to  Colet  of  similar  import — ibid.,  235c. 

Notable  scholars  such  as  Henry  Corneliu*  Agrippa  came  to  him  for 
Instruction  in  theology  :  "  Anno  autem  sequent!  in  Britanniam  trajiciens, 
apud  Johan.  Coletum  Catholicae  doctrinae  eruditissimum,  integerri- 
maeque  vitae  virum,  in  divi  Pauli  epist.  desudavi." — Agrippa's  words 
quoted  by  Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  199-200. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  REFORM  239 

acquiescence  in  the  false  accretions  to  the  popular 
creed.  The  uncompromising  rectitude  of  his  nature 
was  a  principal  cause  of  both  his  sorrows  and  his  glory. 

Besides  King  Henry,  the  powerful  Cardinal  Wolsey  ac- 
corded to  him  his  respect.  Colet  had  been  the  appointed 
preacher  on  the  occasion  of  that  prelate's  advancement 
to  the  rank  of  Cardinal,  and  had  addressed  to  him  some 
candid  and  faithful  words  of  admonition.1  Wolsey 's 
kindly  disposition,  in  subsequent  years,  towards  Colet 
shows  that  the  advice  was  not  taken  in  ill  part.2  No 
higher  tribute,  indeed,  to  the  wisdom  of  the  latter's 
ideals  of  ecclesiastical  reform  could  have  been  offered 
than  that  which  the  Cardinal  paid,  after  Colet's  decease, 
when,  endeavouring  to  effect  improvements  in  morality 
and  discipline  among  the  clergy,  he  proceeded  to  con- 
duct the  enterprise  upon  the  lines  laid  down  by  the 
Dean.  In  this,  even  though  he  employed  the  full 
authority  of  a  Papal  Legate,  Wolsey  failed  to  attain 
any  marked  success,  a  fact  which  illustrates  the 
supreme  difficulty  of  Colet's  position  as  a  reformer,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  enables  us  to  comprehend  the  despair 
which  Bishop  Fox  expressed,  in  a  letter  to  Wolsey,  of 
being  able  to  produce  any  alteration  in  the  existing 
conditions  of  the  life  and  circumstances  of  the  clergy.* 

Thrice  between  the  date  of  Colet's  last  mentioned 
letter  and  that  of  his  death,  Erasmus  wrote  to  him.  It 
is  manifest  that  the  Dean  had  written  several  times 
during  that  period  to  the  renowned  scholar,  but  this 
portion  of  his  correspondence  is  not  now  extant.  How- 
ever, the  loss  is  somewhat  repaired  by  our  possessing 
the  letters  of  Erasmus. 

In  consequence  of  the  numerous  criticisms,  friendly 
and  hostile,  which  his  first  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
had  called  forth,  and  the  corrections  that  even  he  him- 
self perceived  to  be  necessary,  Erasmus  began,  about 

1  Seebohm,  p.  345. 

2  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  227  ;   Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  i628r. 

3  Taunton,  Wolsey,  pp.  62-6  and  83. 


240     OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

the  spring  of  15 18,  to  make  arrangements  for  the  pro- 
duction of  a  second  edition.  This  involved  another 
journey  to  Basle,  and  an  expenditure  of  money  for 
which  he  was  ill  equipped.  Accordingly,  he  sent,  on 
5th  March,  a  bundle  of  letters  to  his  friends  in  England, 
amongst  which  was  one  for  Colet r : — 

Best  of  instructors,  I  am  astonished  and  grieved 
that  the  One-eyed  has  come  hither  without  a  letter 
from  thee.   .   .   . 

I  am  obliged  to  go  to  Basle,  or,  as  I  imagine  it  will 
rather  be,  to  Venice  for  the  printing  of  the  New 
Testament  and  some  other  matters.  .   .   . 

Art  thou  (thou  wilt  say),  an  old  man  and  an  invalid, 
undertaking  so  great  a  journey,  especially  at  such  a 
time  as  the  present  than  which  there  has  not  been  a 
more  villainous  for  six  hundred  years,  in  consequence 
of  the  unbridled  licence  of  robbers  everywhere?  But 
what  else  can  one  do  (sed  quid  facias?)?  I  was  born 
to  this  luck.  If  I  die,  at  any  rate  I  shall  die  for  a 
cause  that  is  far  from  an  evil  one,  unless  I  am  mis- 
taken;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  I  shall  happen  to 
come  back,  with  this  last  act  of  the  tale  concluded  to 
my  satisfaction,  I  have  determined  to  pass  the  re- 
mainder of  my  life  among  you  :  and  that  shall  mean 
my  retirement  from  a  world  depraved  in  every  quarter. 
In  every  prince's  court  pretended  theologians  bear 
rule ;  the  Roman  Curia  has  clearly  lost  all  sense  of 
shame,  for  what  can  be  more  disgraceful  than  these 
perpetual  condonations?  Now  a  war  against  the 
Turks  is  being  put  forward  as  a  pretext,  whereas  the 
Spanish  are  to  be  driven  out  of  Naples,  because 
Lorenzo,  the  nephew  (i.e.,  of  Pope  Leo)  is  trying  to 
establish  a  claim  to  Campagna  for  himself,  now  that 
he  has  married  the  daughter  of  the  King  of  Navarre.' 
And  if  these  disturbances  advance  any  further  the 
rule  of  the  Turks  will  be  preferable  to  that  of  these 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1690.  Like  the  succeeding  ep.  to  Fisher  (ibid.,  1691-2), 
this  bears  only  the  year-date,  but  a  comparison  with  ibid.,  1670E,  1671c, 
1672C-D,  and  especially  1673C-E,  supplies  the  day  and  the  month. 

2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Lorenzo  did  not  marry  Madeleine  de  la  Tour 
until  April — Creighton,  V,  288. 


REVISION  OF  THE  GREEK  TEXT        241 

Christians.        But     away     with     bootless     complain- 
ings !   .   .  . 

Apparently,  Colet  managed  the  business  of  obtaining 
monetary  assistance  from  King  Henry  to  the  content- 
ment of  Erasmus,  who,  a  short  time  before  his  departure 
to  Basle,  replied  as  follows1 : — 

Best  of  patrons,  I  have  already  expressed,  through 
Francis,  my  thanks  to  thee  for  thy  kindness,  and  have 
handed  on  the  note  in  which  I  show  my  satisfaction 
with  regard  to  the  money  that  the  King  has 
sent.   .   .   . 

The  moment  the  work  has  been  finished,  1  shall, 
with  all  my  heart,  come  to  thee,  particularly  if  some 
piece  of  good  fortune  should  turn  up.  For  that  1 
beg  that  thou  wilt  continue  thy  exertions.  Farewell 
indeed.     Louvain,  1  May,  15 18. 

Some  months  passed,  during  which  Erasmus  execu- 
ted the  important  task  of  editing  for  the  second  time 
the  New  Testament  at  Basle.  Whether,  within  that 
period,  he  wrote  to  Colet,  or  Colet  to  him,  is  doubtful. 
We  have  certain  knowledge  of  one  other  letter  (and  this 
is  the  final  extant  communication  between  these  two 
remarkable  men)  which  he  despatched  to  the  Dean  on 
23rd  October,  a  few  days  after  his  return  to  Louvain. 
This  letter  exists  in  a  fragmentary  condition  through 
the  loss  of  a  page  of  the  letter-book,  in  which  the 
autograph  was  contained.2  Imperfect  as  it  is,  it  is  of 
considerable  value  to  us,  inasmuch  as  its  conclusion 
affords  us  some  insight  into  the  opinion  of  a  keen 
spectator  of  the  course  of  events  in  the  ecclesiastical 
world.  We  cannot  avoid  the  inference  from  it  that 
Colet,  as  well  as  Erasmus  himself,  was  watching,  with 
deep  interest  and  perhaps  some  sympathy,  the  rapid 
development  of  the  religious  contest  in  Germany. 

The  New  Testament  will  shortly  be  issued,  some- 
what    satisfactorily.      My     arguments     on     all     the 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  238E-F,  where  it  is  dated  15 17,  but  the  contents  fix 
the  year  as  1518  beyond  question. 

1  Ibid.,  1685-6.    Observe  Leclerc's  footnote. 


242      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

Apostolic  Epistles  are  being  edited.  I  will  soon  pro- 
ceed to  the  Paraphrases  of  the  others.  Give  me  thy 
advice  with  respect  to  what  displeased  thee  in  the 
seventh  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

I  am  sending  thee  a  copy  of  the  speech  made  by  the 
Dominican   Eriar,    Cardinal   Cajetan,    in   the  Council 
of  the  Princes  at  Augsburg,  where  the  Emperor  is 
performing  a  fine  comedy,  and  is  urging  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz  (for  he  is  young)  to  lower  his  dignity 
by  accepting  the  Hat,  and  thus  becoming  a  monk  of 
the    Vatican    order.       O    my    Colet,    what    shifting 
scene  of  human  affairs  is  now  being  put  on  the  stage? 
Men  are  being  turned  into  Gods,  and  the  priesthood 
into   a   despotism ;    princes   are   combining   with   the 
Pontiff,  ay,  and  with  the  Sultan,  against  the  people's 
good ;    Christ   is   growing  obsolete,    and   being,    like 
Moses,  forgotten.1     Farewell.     Louvain,  23  October, 
1518. 
Colet 's  decline  in  health  became  most  marked  about 
the  middle  of  1518,  and,  from  a  few  scattered  notices, 
we  gather  that  he  ceased  now  to  deliver  those  evan- 
gelical addresses  in  St.  Paul's  which  had  been  so  much 
appreciated  by  the  seekers  after  spiritual  admonition.1 
At  length,  there  came  upon  him  in  1519  the  third  attack 
of  the  sweating  sickness,  at  that  time  the  bane  of 
England,  and  this  left  behind  it,  when  it  had  passed 
away,  a  wasting  disorder.    Early  in  September,  all  hope 
of  his  recovery  had  vanished.  On  16th  September,  1519, 
he  expired,  having  lain  at  the  point  of  death  for  nearly 
a  week.3 

To  say  that  he  was  mourned  by  his  generation  is  not, 
in  his  case,  vain  hyperbole.  His  epitaph,  without  any 
exaggeration,  described  him  thus  :  "  John  Colet,  son 
of  Henry  Colet  t^ice  Mayor  of  London,  Dean  of  this 
Cathedral,  died  in  the  y<-  ir  1519,  to  .he  great  sorrow  of 
all  the  people  who,  because  of  the  uprightness  of  his 

1  "  Christus  antiquatur  &  Mosen  sequitur  " — ibid.,  i686b. 

2  Cp.  Erasmus's  remark  to  Bombasius,  26th  July,  1518  — Eras.  Op., 
Ill,  402D,  and  Lupton,  Colet,  pp.  227-9. 

8  Seebohm,  p.  503. 


DEATH  OF  COLET  243 

life  and  his  divine  gift  of  preaching,  loved  him  above  all 
in  his  time,"  etc.1  As  for  Erasmus,  when  the  sad  news 
reached  him,  he  burst  into  a  storm  of  grief  which  found 
utterance  in  a  succession  of  epistles  to  his  friends, 
English  and  continental :  to  Bude,  Lupset,  Pace, 
Dancaster,  Tunstall,  and  Bishop  Fisher.2  His  letter  to 
the  last  named  contains  a  remark  about  Colet  that  not 
only  exhibits  the  firm  faith  the  two  friends  had  in  Christ, 
but  also  throws  not  a  little  light  upon  the  important 
fact  that  neither  bequeathed  anything  for  obits,  re- 
quiem-masses, or  trentals,  though  this  would  have  been 
in  accordance  with  the  religious  ideas  in  which  they  had 
been  brought  up  :  3  they  rested  their  hopes  of  celestial 
happiness  on  Christ  alone  and  the  all-sufficiency  of  His 
mercy 4 : — 

So  far  I  have  written,  though  my  heart  is  filled  with 
grief  for  Colet.  ...  I  know  it  is  well  with  him,  who, 
taken  away  from  this  iniquitous  and  troublesome 
generation,  enjoys  close  at  hand  that  Christ  Whom, 
during  life,  he  loved  so  well.   .   .   . 

When,  in  a  later  epistle  to  Lupset,  he  had  occasion 
to  mention  Colet,  he  exclaims  concerning  him 5 : — 

O  real  theologian  !  O  marvellous  preacher  of 
evangelical  doctrine  !  With  what  energy  he  drank 
in  the  philosophy  of  Christ !  How  eagerly  he  sought 
after  the  mind  and  spirit  of  St.  Paul  !  And  how  the 
purity  of  his  whole  life  corresponded  with  the  divine 
teaching  !  How  many  years  did  he  instruct  the 
people  freely,  in  this  respect  imitating  his  Paul  ! 

But  Erasmus's  most  touching  tribute  to  the  memory 
of  his  friend  is  to  be  found  in  the  conclusion  of  the  long 
epistle  addressed  to  Justus  Jonas  which  until  recently 
constituted  the  chief,  indeed  almost  the  sole,  basis  for 

1  Ibid.,  505. 

■  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  506,  508,  509,  510,  512. 

•  Lupton,  Colet,  p.  232. 

4  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  512A. 

'Ibid.,  532E. 


244      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

a  biography  of  Colet.     There,  alluding  to  the  holy 
Franciscan,  Jean  Vitrier,  and  Colet,  he  said1: — 

But  if  thou  wilt  hearken  to  me,  Jonas,  thou  wilt 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  these  two  men  ought 
to  be  included  in  the  Catalogue  of  Saints,  though  no 
Pope  enrolled  them  in  the  Canon.  Happy  souls,  to 
whom  I  owe  much,  with  your  prayers  aid  Erasmus, 
still  struggling  amidst  the  ills  of  this  life,  to  return  to 
your  fellowship  never  more  to  quit  it  ! 

One  pioneer  was  gone,  and  upon  Erasmus  there  fell 
all  the  heavier  the  burden  of  maintaining  the  ideals  of 
Catholic  reform.  As,  in  his  case,  these  were  not  a  little 
impeded  by  his  humanistic  temperament  and  his  alter- 
nations of  candour  and  evasion,  they  ceased  to  be 
insisted  upon  with  that  constancy  which  their  nature 
demanded.  It  is  obviously  impossible  to  expect  from 
all  men,  and  even  from  those  of  high  integrity  and 
virtue,  the  unfaltering  rectitude  of  a  Colet,  or  the  modest 
probity  of  a  Lefevre.  Nevertheless,  that  no  champion, 
fitted  by  character  and  attainments  for  the  promotion 
of  ideals  of  reform  on  Catholic  lines,  appeared  during  the 
troublous  years  that  followed  the  death  of  Colet,  and 
whilst  the  Lutheran  quarrel  was  extending  wider  and 
wider,  is  a  matter  for  profound  regret.  The  position 
of  Thomas  More,  Bishops  Fisher  and  Utenheim,  and 
others  like  these,  who  held  local  offices  or  circumscribed 
provinces,  precluded  them  from  posing  as  leaders  in 
such  a  scheme.  Within  their  own  limits  they  supported 
and  advocated  it  warmly.  But  leadership  required 
freedom,  and  that  only  Erasmus  and  Lefevre  possessed, 
of  whom  the  former  was  inadequate  by  reason  of  his 
vacillation,  and  the  latter  by  reason  of  the  mildness  of 
his  disposition.  We  shall,  however,  presently  see  that 
Lefevre  actually  adopted,  for  a  short  time,  the  role  of 
leader,  in  his  own  country,  but  without  any  widespread 
results.  Colet,  if  he  had  lived  long  enough  and  had 
released  himself  from  the  bonds  of  the  deanery  for  the 

1  Ibid.,  46 IF. 


DISPUTE  WITH   LEE  245 

purpose,  would,  in  all  probability,  have  supplied  the  age 
with  the  religious  leader  it  required  ;  he  might  have 
been  able  to  bring  to  a  successful  issue  the  project  of 
bettering  the  Church  without  schism.  No  doubt,  it  is 
idle  now  to  speculate  upon  the  consequences  which 
would  have  followed  from  such  an  enterprise,  as  he 
would  have  conducted  it.  At  the  same  time,  we  may  be 
permitted  to  declare  our  confidence  that  he  would  have 
resisted  all  attempts  to  introduce  causes  of  separation 
among  Christians  ;  for,  in  his  thoughts,  reform  included 
in  its  signification,  not  disunion,  but  the  realization  of 
a  pure  and  holy  conception  of  Christian  unity.  But, 
in  England,  Colet  had  sickened  and  died;  in  Brabant, 
Erasmus  was  engaged  in  academic  disputes,  hardly 
worthy  of  his  attention  ;  and  in  France,  Lefevre  con- 
tended, on  inferior  points,  with  puny  critics.  Only  one 
thing  was  certain — biblical  studies  were  advancing,  and 
the  interest  in  the  Sacred  Writings  spreading  amongst 
not  merely  the  educated  classes  but  the  commonalty. 

The  dispute  which  Erasmus  had  with  Edward  Lee 
continued  for  several  years.1  Lee  represented  the 
cleverest,  and  possibly  also,  along  with  Latomus,2  the 
most  sincere  class  of  conservative  theologians.  If  his 
controversy  with  Erasmus  had  been  kept  free  from 
damaging  incriminations  against  the  great  Dutch 
scholar,  and  with  some  reverence  for  the  vast  learning 
of  the  man  he  was  attacking,  posterity  could  not  but 
have  admired  him  for  his  consistency.  We  cannot 
assert  that  the  lack  of  courtesy  and  kindliness  was 
exhibited  by  only  one  party  to  the  dispute,  yet  we  fear 
that  there  was  a  great  amount  of  truth  in  the  statement 
of  Erasmus  that,  in  raising  the  angry  debate,  Lee  had 
been  very  largely  actuated  by  ambition.3 

1  Apparently  the  contest  began  in  the  early  part  of  1 5 19.  Erasmus 
and  Lee,  in  15 17,  were  on  friendly  terms — cp.  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1656B. 

2  Erasmus  had  a  controversy  with  Latomus,  in  15 19,  but  it  never  at- 
tained the  proportions,  or  the  severity,  of  that  with  Lee.  Consult  Eras. 
Op.,  IX,  80-106  (28th  March,  1 519). 

3  Ibid.,  IX,  20 1  a,  b. 


246      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

Erasmus  not  unnaturally  dreaded  the  result  of  Lee's 
obtaining  the  support  of  his  compatriots  in  the  contest. 
Therefore,  he  requested  Fox  to  restrain  Lee.1  During 
October,  1519,  he  considered  it  advisable  to  write  two 
letters  to  Bishop  Fisher  for  the  purpose  of  explaining 
his  position  in  the  controversy  ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
he  plainly  showed  Tunstall  that  he  feared  the  effect 
of  Lee's  representations  upon  the  mind  of  that  worthy, 
but  suspicious,  prelate.'  Again,  two  months  later, 
Erasmus  put  forth  a  long  defence  of  himself  against  the 
accusations  of  Lee,  in  an  epistle  ostensibly  addressed  to 
Lupset.8 

Instead  of  rendering  Lee  a  more  agreeable  opponent, 
Erasmus's  defences  and  explanations  only  increased  his 
boldness  and  caused  him  to  redouble  his  assaults  during 
the  next  year.* 

To  Erasmus  the  controversy  was  eminently  danger- 
ous. The  condition  of  the  times,  in  consequence  of  the 
turn  German  affairs  were  taking,  almost  forbade  the 
progress  of  biblical  science,  and  the  slightest  suspicion 
of  false  doctrine  imperilled  the  peace,  and  even  life 
of  the  rash  man  who  awakened  it.  The  alarm  of 
Erasmus  arose  from  the  action  of  the  Curia  towards 
Reuchlin,  as  well  as  Luther,  in  this  year,  and  he  did  not 
know  but  that  his  own  condemnation  would  follow.  His 
anxiety,  therefore,  during  1519,  to  separate  the  cause 
of  Reuchlin  from  that  of  Luther,  and  his  own  from  both, 
rested  on  grounds  palpably  unheroic  ;  but,  nevertheless, 
it  is  hardly  fair  to  say  that  he  showed  himself  a  coward, 

x  Ibid.,  III,443B,  c,  25th  May,  1 519. 

1  Ibid.,  481D;  51  ie,  f  ;  509F;  510B.  Of  the  first  of  these  epp.  the  date 
given  by  Leclerc  must  be  wrong,  2nd  August,  15 19.  A  comparison  of 
Barham  (Francis,  Life  and  Times  of  John  Reuchlin  or  Capnion,  London, 
1843),  PP-  203-4,  and  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  512c  would  make  2nd  October  the 
most  probable  date. 

*  Ibid.,  524-32,  13th  December,  15 19. 

*  See  the  cp.  to  Pirckheimer,  iqth  March,  1520 — ibid.,  1861A.  The 
year  of  this  letter  is  not  given  in  Leclerc,  but  can  be  ascertained  by  a 
comparison  with  ibid.,  543A  and  552D.  Consult  another  ep.  of  similar 
purport,  to  Botzheim,  16th  May,  1520,  ibid.,  239B. 


ACCUSATIONS  OF  HERESY  247 

for,  in  the  epistle  alluded  to,  he  does  not  fail  to  declare 
that  the  opponents  of  Reuchlin  and  Luther  were  much 
more  to  be  blamed  than  these  men  themselves.  Such, 
indeed,  were  the  exigencies  of  the  position  in  which  he 
was  placed  by  this  controversy  that  he  found  himself 
forced  to  perform  a  deed  that  all  his  literary  successors 
have  regretted.  This  was  the  insertion,  against  his  own 
better  judgment  and  in  compliance  with  the  stated 
reading  of  a  manuscript  he  never  saw,  of  the  famous 
gloss  of  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses  (1  John  v.  7), 
which  is  still  incorporated  in  our  Authorized  Version, 
as  if  it  were  authentic,  though  Erasmus's  reluctant 
inclusion  of  it  in  his  third  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment (1522)  is  the  sole  authority  for  its  presence  there.1 
Mindful  of  the  supreme  difficulties  the  scholar  had  to 
encounter  we  exonerate  Erasmus  from  blame.  The 
omission  of  this  passage,  which  stood  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate  but  was  absent  from  all  the  Greek  texts  con- 
sulted by  him,  laid  him  open  to  a  charge  of  favouring 
Arianism.1  He  could  not  hope  to  rebut  the  accusation 
successfully  with  the  retort  that  there  were  then  no 
Arians  to  favour  and  that  no  evil  results  had  as  yet, 
though  three  years  had  elapsed  since  the  publication 
of  the  New  Testament,  displayed  themselves.3  The 
charge  remained  and  spread  amongst  the  obscurantists 
and  gathered  no  little  additional  force  from  the  repre- 
sentations of  men  who  were  spending  a  large  part  of 
their  energies  in  detecting  heresies.  Unquestionably, 
Erasmus  showed  weakness  in  giving  even  the  appear- 
ance of  victory  to  such  an  opponent  as  Lee.  Yet,  not 
the  learning  of  his  English  critic,  but  the  circumstances 

1  Erasmi  Annot.  in  Nov.  Test.  (4th  edit.),  p.  697  :  "  Ex  hoc  igitur 
codice  britannico  reposuimus,  quod  in  nostris  dicebatur  deesse  :  ne  cui 
sit  ansa  calumniandi."  To  these  words  he  adds  (  Apol.  ad  Stunicam,  Op., 
IX,  353E)  :  "  Quanquam  &  hunc  suspicor  ad  Latinorum  codices  fuisse 
castigatum.  Postcaquam  enim  Graeci  concordiam  inierunt  cum  Eccle- 
sia  Romana,  studuerunt  &  hac  in  parte  cum  Romanis  consentire." 

1  Eras.  Annot.  in  Nov.  Test.  (4th  edit.),  pp.  697-8. 

*  Eras.  Op.,  IX,  277E  and  280A. 


248      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

of  the  time  and  the  vociferations  of  the  obscurantists 
afforded  excuses  for  the  submission  ;  and  it  cannot  be 
said  in  our  day  that  Lee  and  his  supporters  appear,  to 
the  careful  reader  of  Erasmus's  Annotations  and  New 
Testament,  and  to  the  student  of  textual  criticism,  in 
any  other  guise  than  that  of  dcblatcr antes,  as  Erasmus 
himself  termed  them. 

After  Lee,  two  new  adversaries  attacked  him, 
perhaps  even  encouraged  to  do  so  by  that  zealous 
guardian  of  Christian  orthodoxy.  These  were  Stunica, 
a  renowned  Spanish  scholar  who  had  been  chief  editor, 
under  Cardinal  Ximenes,  of  the  great  Complutensian 
Polyglot — a  much  more  important  theologian  than 
Lee,  and  Sanchio  Caranza,  the  friend  and  assistant  of 
Stunica.  Although  the  latter  never  descended  to  the 
level  of  Stunica's  coarseness  and  animosity,  he  repeated 
that  person's  accusations  of  heresy  and  of  favour 
towards  heretics  and  Lutherans.1  And,  no  doubt, 
Erasmus  was  able  to  adduce  patristic  authorities  for  his 
opinions,  but  he  knew  well  that  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  would  not  protect  him  always,  for  his  enemies, 
even  the  best  of  them,  were  capable  of  representing  him 
as  misquoting  these  early  writers.2 

Beyond  question,  the  fact  which  Erasmus  found  most 
difficult  to  establish,  in  all  the  controversies  into  which 
he  was  drawn  during  1519-1530,  if  one  may  judge  by 
the  persistent  repetition  of  the  same  calumny,  was  that 
there  was  no  real  ground  for  asserting  that  a  connection 

1  Ibid.,  287A,  335c,  315c,  423E,  r,  424A-B,  431.  Stunica  published  at 
Rome,  in  1522,  a  particularly  venomous  book  against  Erasmus — see  ibid., 
3550,  and  Erasmus's  reply,  dated  Basle,  13th  June,  1522 — ibid.,  355D- 
375B.  To  this  are  appended  in  Op.  IX,  an  Apologia  ad  Prodromon  Jac. 
Stunicae,  a  list  of  the  Spaniard's  Conclusions  against  Erasmus,  dated 
Rome,  1523,  and  an  Apology  against  the  Conclusions,  dated  Basle,  1st 
March,  1524.  In  these,  Stunica  tries  to  prove  that  Erasmus's  teachings 
and  sympathies  are  Lutheran,  and  Erasmus  strives  to  clear  himself  of  the 
charge.    Consult  also  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  71 5E. 

2  Eras.  Op.,  IX,  422D  :  "  Videat,  inquit  (Caranza),  Erasmus  quam 
falso  citat  Ambrosium."  To  which  Erasmus  retorted  :  "  Imo  videat 
Sanctius  quam  facilis  sit  ad  calumniandum  proximum  suum." 


RESULTS  OF  THE  DISPUTE  249 

existed  between  him  and  Luther.  Modern  students  of  the 
writings  and  correspondence  of  both  men  are  able  to 
recognize  that,  in  actual  truth,  the  ideals  and  aims  of 
the  Dutch  scholar  and  the  German  reformer  were  by  no 
means  alike  ;  they  varied  in  their  estimation  of  the  same 
facts  ;  even  in  the  matter  of  reform,  though  they  both 
agreed  that  an  improvement  in  morals  and  faith  was 
necessary  for  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  the  mode 
of  proceeding  towards  this  desirable  end  which  the  one 
held  to  be  the  most  efficacious  resembled  in  few  points 
that  which  the  other  advocated. 

The  consequences  of  the  strife  between  Lee  and 
Erasmus  manifested  themselves  in  the  growth  of 
hostility  towards  the  Dutch  scholar  in  a  country  where 
hitherto  he  had  met  with  nothing  but  the  greatest 
consideration  and  assistance.  It  was  comparatively 
easy  for  the  friends  of  Erasmus  to  afford  him  protection 
from  the  assaults  of  ill  informed  and  malignant  critics 
by  turning  their  accusations  into  ridicule,1  but  men  of 
that  sort  were  only  exasperated  by  laughter  and  spread 
their  calumnies  all  the  more  extensively.  To  devise 
some  honourable  means  of  appeasing  them  was  an 
arduous,  and  indeed  a  bootless,  task  ;  nothing  would 
have  satisfied  them  save  the  acknowledgment  that  they 
had  been  correct  in  all  their  extravagant  misconceptions 
and  that  he  himself  had  been  ignorant  of  matters  con- 
cerning which  his  knowledge  was  profound.  This 
formed  the  problem  which  confronted  Erasmus,  and  the 
means  he  adopted  for  its  solution  was  a  mixture  of 
argument  and  ridicule.  Probably  his  method  was 
shrewd  ;  it  seems  to  have  been  fair,  because  candid  and 
honest,  because  free  from  dissimulation. 

But  the  storm  was  little  more  than  at  its  commence- 
ment. Soon,  not  only  Brabant,  but  Spain,  England, 
and  France  would  provide  a  multitude  of  adversaries, 
whose  efforts  to  fasten  the  charge  of  heresy  upon  him 

1  See  the  long  ep.  of  Erasmus  to  Hermann  von  dcm  Busche,  dated 
from  Louvain,  31st  July,  1520 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  561D-563D. 


250     OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

would  embitter  his  declining  years.  Hitherto,  the  last 
named  country  had  not  furnished  any  assailants,  though 
his  studies  were  not  viewed  there  with  favour.  It  is 
true  that  King  Francis  had  invited  him,  through  Bude\ 
to  come  to  Paris  and  promised  him  a  pension  if  he  came. 
He  had  been  withheld  from  complying  with  the  sugges- 
tion by  many  grave  reasons,  and  not  least  by  knowing 
the  kind  of  ecclesiastics  by  whom  he  would  be  sur- 
rounded in  the  French  capital  ;  he  did  not  need  Loriti's 
sarcastic  epistle  to  enlighten  him  as  to  the  large  numbers 
of  Scotists  and  Thomists  who  occupied  themselves  there 
with  profitless  disputations.1 

The  Sorbonne,  however,  through  the  zeal  of  its 
Syndic,  was  engaged  in  investigating  heresy  much 
nearer  home,  and  had  no  time  then  to  spare  for  Erasmus. 

It  is  a  peculiar  circumstance  that  many  of  Lefevre's 
devoted  followers  came  from  his  own  district,  or  its 
immediate  neighbourhood,  namely  Picardy  and  Artois, 
and  that  his  most  inveterate  foe,  Noel  Beda,  or  Bedier, 
also  came  from  it.  This  person,  destined  to  attain 
distinction  as  an  inquisitor  of  the  faith,  the  functions 
of  which  office  he  felt  conscientiously  bound  to  discharge 
by  reason  of  his  position  as  Syndic  of  the  Theological 
Faculty  in  the  University  of  Paris,  was  obscure  until 
the  controversies  in  which  he  busied  himself  rendered 
him  famous.  It  is  believed  that  he  was  born  about  1470, 
but  the  first  certain  particular  that  can  be  ascertained 
regarding  him  is  that  he  succeeded  Standonck  in  the 
administration  of  the  College  of  Montaigu,  in  1503.* 
Later  on,  he  became  chief  of  the  ultra-orthodox  party 
in  the  Faculty  of  Theology.  The  preponderance  of  this 
party  over  the  more  moderate  theologians  and  its 
bitter  hostility  both  to  what  appeared  to  savour  of 
heresy  and  to  literary  studies  generally,  especially  to 
humanism,  as  the  originating  cause  of   "  heretical  " 

1  Ibid.,  1 62 1. 

1  For  some  particulars  about  B£da,  consult  Caron  (Pierre),  Noil  Beda, 
Toulouse  (Positions  de»  Theses)  1898,  pp.  27  et  seq. 


NOEL  B£DA  251 

notions,  conferred  on  B£da,  from  1520  onwards,  the 
possession  of  vast  influence.  For  several  years,  he 
wielded  the  power  of  an  ecclesiastical  dictator  in  the 
interests  of  a  reactionary  orthodoxy  and  would  brook 
no  deviation,  however  slight,  from  the  received  con- 
clusions of  the  schoolmen  and  their  followers.  A 
collision  between  this  truly  fanatical  man  and  Lefevre 
was  inevitable  ;  when  it  happened,  the  occasion  of  it 
was  comparatively  trivial. 

The  notices  of  Lefevre's  life  are  scanty,  and  his 
movements  are  not  always  particularized  with  that 
definiteness  which  is  required  for  the  comprehension  of 
his  attitude  towards  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical 
questions  of  his  era. 

Subsequently  to  the  publication  of  his  Commentaries 
on  the  Pauline  Epistles,  he  accompanied  Bishop 
Briconnet  to  Narbonne,  where  the  Cardinal  de  Bri- 
connet lay  seriously  ill.  That  celebrated  diplomatist 
and  churchman  died,  soon  after  their  arrival,  on  14th 
December,  1514.1 

About  a  year  later,  Briconnet  was  translated  from 
the  see  of  Lodeve  to  that  of  Meaux,  near  Paris,  but 
he  retained  the  abbacy  of  St.  Germain-des-Pres. 
Almost  immediately  after  his  new  appointment  the 
Bishop  was  despatched  on  a  diplomatic  mission  in  the 
performance  of  which  he  spent  two  years.8  It  was 
during  this  latter  period  that  Lefevre  suffered  from  an 
illness  which  lasted  for  a  considerable  time  and  so 
enfeebled  his  faculties  as  to  cause  his  friends  some 
apprehension.8  From  August  1516  until  the  following 
spring  this  indisposition  continued,  but  by  the  summer 
of  1517  he  had  regained  his  usual  good  health,  and  with 
it  his  cheerful,  happy,  companionable  nature.4 

1  Herminjard,  I,  1911. 

8  Ibid.,  43  n.3. 

8  Ibid.,  23  ;   Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1565A-B,  and  21  IB,  181c. 

4  For  a  description  of  Lefevre's  pleasant  personality,  see  the  ep.  of 
Glareanus  to  Zwingli,  29th  August,  1 5 1 7 — Ilerm.,  I,  24n.,  and  hii  ep. 
to  Erasmus,  5th  August,  1 5 1 7 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1 62^. 


252      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

At  this  epoch,  among  the  past  and  present  pupils  of 
Lefevre,  and  his  friends,  the  greatest  enthusiasm  pre- 
vailed with  regard  to  biblical  studies.  Not  only  Bude, 
but  Caesarius,  Berauld,  Beatus  Rhenanus,  Cop.Vatable, 
Nesen,  Louis  de  Berquin,  Valentin,  Tschudi,  and  many 
others,  applied  themselves  to  them  so  ardently,  that 
Erasmus  wrote  to  Guillaume  Hue,  Dean  of  Paris 
Cathedral,  congratulating  that  dignitary  on  the  pro- 
gress of  these  studies  in  the  University  and  tracing  the 
origin  of  it  to  the  favour  shown  to  them  by  the  Bishop 
of  Paris  (fitienne  Poncher)  and  King  Francis.1  And 
indeed  the  major  number  of  French  ecclesiastics  sadly 
needed  enlightenment.2 

Lefevre,  who  appears  to  have  ceased  to  reside  at 
St.  Germain-des-Pres  in  the  autumn  of  1518,3  began 
towards  the  close  of  that  year  to  compile  a  history  of 
the  Saints,  in  the  form  of  biographies  arranged  according 
to  the  order  of  their  festivals.  He  had  barely  finished 
January  and  February  when  he  relinquished  the 
undertaking  entirely.4  About  that  time  he  became 
involved  in  a  dispute  regarding  a  book  which  he  had 
published  during  the  previous  year,  in  which  he  had 
controverted  the  opinion  expressed  in  the  liturgy  of 
the  Church  that  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  sister  of 
Lazarus,  and  the  sinful  woman  of  St.  Luke  vii.  37,  were 
the  same  person.     In  December,  1518,  he  had  re-pub- 

1  Ibid..  335,  dated  9th  August,  1518. 

2  Clichroue,  in  151 5,  published  a  work  designed  to  restore  to  the  clergy 
an  irreiiigent  comprehension  of  the  services  of  the  Church,  and  in  his 
dediction  deplored  the  lamentable  ignorance  of  those  who  served  the 
altar  and  praised  God  without  understanding  the  words  they  used — 
Herm.,  I,  21  et  seq.  Two  years  later,  Capito  re-issued  this  book  at  Basle, 
with  a  dedicatory  ep.  to  Bishop  Utenheim,  which  completes  the  picture 
of  ecclesiastical  ignorance.    See  also  ibid.,  39. 

3  Ibid.,  45,  n.19. 

*  Ep.  of  Glareanus  to  Zwingli,  13th  January,  1 5 1 9 — Herm.,  I,  41  and 
n.i.  Farel,  in  1530  whilst  Lefevre  was  still  alive,  asserted  that  it  was 
disgust  at  the  wholesale  idolatry  of  which  the  saints  were  the  objects  that 
determined  Lefevre  to  abandon  this  task  and  devote  himself  solely  to 
the  exposition  of  Holy  Scripture. 


THE  THREE   MARIES  253 

lishcd  this  book  and  added  a  confutation  of  yet  another 
common'y  accepted  tradition,  viz.,  that  St.  Anna,  the 
mother  of  the  B.V.M.,  had  been  thrice  married,  and  by 
each  marriage  had  a  daughter  named  Mary. 

This  work,  strange  as  it  may  appear  to  us  in  the 
twentieth  century,  drew  upon  its  rash  author  the 
severest  criticisms  of  the  Sorbonnists.  Indeed,  the 
dispute  passed  beyond  the  confines  of  France,  and 
elicited  replies  from  foreign  scholars,  upholding  the 
traditional  views.1  Among  his  pupils  and  friends 
Lefevre  found  supporters  ;  Clichtoue  published  a 
defence  of  his  opinion,2  and  Henry  Cornelius  Agrippa  of 
Nettesheim  informed  Lefevre  (early  part  of  1519)  that 
he  had  been  holding  certain  disputations  at  Metz  with 
opponents  of  the  newly  advanced  ideas.3 

Soon  after  his  return  from  the  mission  to  Rome  on 
which  King  Francis  had  sent  him,  Briyonnet  undertook 
seriously  the  business  of  effecting  reforms  in  his  diocese 
of  Meaux  ;  for  instance,  he  required  the  clergy  to  reside 
in  their  cures  and  sought  to  revive  a  profitable  kind  of 
preaching.  To  accomplish  his  benevolent  designs  he 
held  several  Visitations,  at  which  he  examined  into  the 
state  of  his  diocese.  Where  he  found  it  impossible  or 
inconvenient  to  enforce  his  demand  for  the  residence  of 
the  parish  priest  he  insisted  on  the  appointment  of  a 
capable  curate  or  locum  tenens.  His  admorinons 
regarding  the  delivery  of  sermons  proved  to  be  of  no 

1  Graf,  Zeitschrift,  etc.,  pp.  55-6.  Stunica,  probably  attracted  by  thi8 
controversy,  turned  aside  from  his  attacks  on  Erasmus  to  issue,  in  1522? 
his  Annotationes  in  Jac.  Fabrum  super  epp.  S.  Pauli — ibid.,  p.  32. 

2  Herm.,  I,  49,  n5. 

3  See  Hcrm.,  I,  49-54,  57-60,  and  the  addendum  to  p.  51  given  in  appen- 
dix p.  481.  Lefevre  had  inserted  in  his  Comm.  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
an  Apology  which  set  forth  a  denial  of  the  Hieronymian  origin  of  the  com- 
monly used  Latin  Version.  This  judgment  now  began  to  be  an  addi- 
tional ground  for  attack  by  the  Sorbonnists — Ibid.,  I,  58,  n.3,  and  62. 
During  1521,  a  Carmelite,  preaching  before  King  Francis,  declared  that 
Lefevre  in  France,  Reuchlin  in  Germany,  Erasmus  in  Brabant  and  a 
Minorite  in  Italy,  were  the  forerunners  of  Antichrist — Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
1695F,  646F. 


254      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

avail,  for  some  of  the  clergy  were  too  ignorant  and 
others  too  obstinate  to  comply  with  his  desires  in  this 
respect.  Accordingly  he  divided  his  diocese  into 
preaching-districts  and  allocated  preachers  to  them, 
but  he  permitted  the  friars  to  choose  some  of  the 
districts  for  themselves,  because  they  claimed,  by  right 
of  custom,  the  privilege  of  sending  itinerant  preachers 
throughout  the  diocese,  though,  indeed,  they  had 
hitherto  confined  their  ministrations  to  a  few  of  the 
more  important  centres  only.1 

The  new  ideals  at  this  juncture  gained  a  powerful 
friend,  on  whose  influence  and  importance  sufficient 
stress  has  not,  until  recently,  been  laid. 

The  Princess  Margaret  of  Angoul£me,  only  sister  of 
Francis  I,  and  dearly  loved  by  him,  was  a  woman  of 
many  singular  and  good  qualities2: — 

The  learned  were  dear  to  her,  the  unfortunate  were 
for  her  sacred,  all  human  beings  were  her  brethren, 
all  Frenchmen  her  family.  She  did  not  divide  society 
into  orthodox  and  heretics,  but  into  oppressors  and 
oppressed,  whatever  was  the  faith  of  both  ;  she  held 
out  her  hand  to  the  latter,  she  restrained  the  former 
without  injuring  them  or  hating  them.  These  graces, 
these  gentle  virtues  of  a  lovable  princess  were  indeed 
far  removed  from  the  zeal  of  the  Syndic  Beda,  who 
lay  in  wait  for  heretics,  and  from  that  of  the 
Councillor  Yerjus,  who  burned  them. 

Thus  it  is  that  a  modern  historian  sketches  an  ex- 
tremely attractive  character.*  Margaret  was,  in  1521, 
when  she  first  appears  as  an  advocate  of  religious  reform, 
about  29  years  of  age.  Such  a  depth  of  affection  sub- 
sisted between  her  brother  and  herself  that  he  fre- 
quently consulted  her  respecting  state  affairs  and  fol- 

1  See  the  extracts  from  Brigonnet's  synodal  addresses,  October,  1519, 
and  October,  1520,  given  by  Graf,  pp.  59-61. 

1  Gaillard,  quoted  by  Herm.,  I,  66n. 

1  Consul:  also  Darmesteter  &  Hatzfeld  I  (Le  Seizietne  Steele  en 
France),  pp.  35,  63-4,  93-4,  and  II  (Morceaux  Choisis),  pp.  115  et  seq. 


MARGARET  OF  ANGOULEME     255 

lowed  her  advice.  She  had  married,  in  1509,  Charles, 
due  d'Alencon. 

The  correspondence  between  this  lady  and  Guillaume 
de  Briconnet  reveals  the  fact  that  the  Bishop  occupied  a 
high  place  in  her  esteem,  partly  as  a  friend,  and  partly 
as  a  spiritual  adviser.  Notwithstanding  the  great 
number  of  the  letters  they  seldom  mention  political  or 
current  events.  They  appear,  at  first  sight,  to  be  devo- 
tional effusions,  records  of  pious  impressions,  or  inter- 
changes of  religious  meditations.1  An  estimate  of  this 
kind  would  be  correct  enough,  if  there  were  not  here 
and  there  amongst  them  slight  allusions  to  a  definite 
project  which  would  have  had  a  tremendous  effect  upon 
the  ecclesiastical  history  of  France,  and  perhaps  also 
of  Europe,  if  it  had  attained  success.  Only  a  few  of 
them  have  been  printed  in  the  Correspondence  des 
Reformateurs',*  but  they  are  sufficient  for  our  present 
purpose. 

If  Briconnet  was  influenced  by  Lefevre  regarding  a 
spiritualized  religion  and  a  restoration  of  primitive 
religious  ideals,  the  prelate,  for  his  part,  had  a  similar 
ascendency  over  the  young  Princess.  Through  her 
he  hoped  to  gain  the  favour  of  King  Francis  and  by  him 
conduct  that  reform  which  the  Church  so  much  needed. 
It  is  not  that  Briconnet  aimed  at  the  prosecution  of 
what  was  known  in  another  generation  as  a  reformation 
of  the  Church  upon  National  lines.  The  later  history 
of  himself  and  his  friends  proves  this  absolutely.  He 
desired,  indeed,  that  King  Francis,  moved  by  the  love 
of  God  and  the  wish  to  serve  Him,  should  undertake 
the  diffusion  of  a  truer  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  throughout  France  and  thereby  amend  the 
manifold  errors  in  faith  and  practice  so  painfully  evident 
in  every  quarter  of  the  country.3 

1  Dr.  Graf,  Zeitschrift,  etc.,  pp.  65-7.  See  also  Lavisse,  Hist,  de 
France,  V,  bk.  VI,  sections  II  and  III. 

1  Another  work  which  contains  some  of  them  and  furnishes  particulari 
not  given  by  Herminjard  is  Genin's  Lettres  de  Marguerite  d'  Angoulfrne, 
Paris,  1841.  *  See  Doumergue,  I,  107  and  App.  V  (pp.  542-51). 


256      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

Consequently,  in  this  curious  correspondence  one 
may  remark  frequent  allusions  to  the  state  of  the  con- 
temporary Church,  and  to  Margaret's  willingness  to 
comply  with  Briconnet's  suggestions  respecting  its 
improvement. 

A  few  extracts  from  these  letters  will  make  clear  the 
plans  of  the  Bishop  and  the  Princess's  sympathies  with 
them.  Margaret  is  so  full  of  enthusiasm  at  being  one  of 
Briconnet's  spiritual  "  band  "  that  she  hopes  to  die  in 
their  company.1  She  implores  him  to  enlighten  the 
ignorance  of  a.  people  destitute  of  spiritual  knowledge, 
amongst  whom  she  herself  is  the  most  ignorant  of  all.* 
Briconnet  thereupon3  points  out  to  her  the  advantage 
of  persuading  the  King  and  the  Queen-mother,  Louise 
of  Savoy,  to  work  "  for  the  honour  of  God  "  : — 

If  the  hearts  of  you  three  be  united  to  this  end,  it 
will  be  easy  to  light  a  great  fire.*  Their  present 
occupations  hinder  their  taking  the  work  in  hand,  and 
I  am  confident  that  this  is  the  machination  of  the  evil 
one,  who  desires  to  obstruct  what  he  foresees  will 
redound  to  the  glory  of  God.  .  .  .  When  you  see  an 
opportunity,   advance  God's  work. 

From  this  time,  the  indications  of  the  Bishop's  aims 
become  clearer.  Margaret,  writing  to  him  (before  22nd 
November)  from  Compiegne,  adds  an  important 
postscript6: — 

I  do  not  know  whether  I  ought  to  rejoice  at  being 
numbered  amongst  those  whom  I  yearn  to  be  like,  or 
to  suffer  grief  at  seeing  our  brethren  err  under  the 
impression  that  they  are  doing  right."  ...    I  think  it 

1  Margaret  to  Briconnet,  July,  1521 — Herm.,  I,  68  ;  and  another  ep. 
of  July,  1 52 1 — Ibid.,  I,  476. 

2  Epp.  of  October,  1521 — Ibid.,  476-7. 

3  Ep.  of  nth  November,  1521 — Ibid.,  478-9. 

*/.*.,  a  fire  of  zeal,  of  spiritual  earnestness.  Cp.,  the  ep.  of  22nd 
December,  1521  —  Ibid.,  I,  86. 

6  Ibid.,  77-8. 

•  Herm.,  I,  78,  n.  10,  thinks  this  a  reference  to  the  condemnation  pro- 
nounced by  the  Sorbonne  (9th  November,  1521),  at  the  instance  of  B6da, 


THE   PRINCESS'S  CORRESPONDENCE    257 

were  best  to  shut  the  mouths  of  the  ignorant,  and  I 
assure  you  that  the  King  and  Madame  have  resolved 
to  let  it  be  known  that  the  truth  of  God  is  not  heresy. 

To  this  Briconnet  replies  (22nd  November  1521)  that 
it  is,  indeed,  necessary1 

to  pray  to  our  Lord,  as  you  very  properly  write,  to 
enlighten  the  darkness  of  these  hypocrites.  I  know 
some  of  their  sect,3  whom  God  has  so  visited,  that 
they  have  returned  Him  thanks,  in  my  presence,  for 
having  withdrawn  the  scales  from  their  eyes. 

In  the  following  month,  Margaret  sends  Briconnet  a 
letter  in  which  she  tells  him  of  the  success  that  had 
attended  the  instructions  of  Michel  d'Arande  at  her 
court,8  and  she  concludes  thus  :— 

At  the  same  time,  I  beg  of  you,  amidst  all  your 
pious  wishes  for  the  reformation  of  the  Church,  to- 
wards which  the  King  and  Madame  are  more  than  ever 
inclined,  and  the  salvation  of  all  poor  souls,  to  keep 
in  memory  one  imperfect,  badly  shaped,  pearl.* 

In  his  answer  (22nd  December)  to  the  above  epistle, 
the  Bishop  openly  deplores  the  state  of  the  Church,8 
but  expresses  his  pleasure  at  receiving  the  Princess's 
encouraging  words  : — 

I  praise  the  Lord  because  He  has  put  it  into  the 
heart  of  the  King  to  perform  the  thing  mentioned  to 
me.  By  doing  it  he  will  display  himself  a  true 
lieutenant-general   of   the   great   Power   (grand   Feu) 

upon  Lefevre's  book  on  the  Three  Maries,  and  the  attempt  then  made 
before  Parliament  to  have  him  punished  as  a  heretic.     King  Francis 
ordered  the  Parliament  not  to  disturb  Lefevre. 
1  Herm.,  I,  81. 

*  He  means  the  Sorbonnists. 
3  Herm.,  I,  84. 

*  Briconnet,  in  allusion  to  the  meaning  of  her  name,  had  written  to  her 
a  letter  of  which  the  leading  topic  was  pearls — ibid.,  I,  84  n.2.  Some  years 
afterwards,  Margaret  herself  wrote  a  book  of  poems  and  dramatical 
pieces,  to  which  was  given  the  title,  Marguerites  de  la  Marguerite  des 
Princesses  (1547) — Darmesteter  &  Hatzfeld,  p.  93. 

5  This  ep.  is  given  by  Herminjard  in  two  portions.  The  earlier  is  at 
pp.  479-80,  the  later  at  pp.  84-6,  in  tome  I. 


258      OBSCURANTISTS  AND   CURIALISTS 

that  bestowed  upon  him  distinguished  gifts  for  fervent 
exercise  in  his  government  and  kingdom,  whereof 
kings  are  only  viceroys  and  lieutenants-general  of  the 
King  of  Kings. 

Everything  points  to  the  issue  of  a  vernacular 
edition  of  Holy  Scripture,  with  the  royal  assent,  as  the 
object  of  these  negotiations.  Such,  indeed,  would  seem 
to  have  been  the  case.1 

Of  Lefevre's  movements  after  the  close  of  15 19  little 
is  known.  He  appears  to  have  quitted  St.  Germain- 
des-Pres  and  to  have  undertaken  extensive  journeys, 
during  1520.*  By  the  early  summer  of  1521  he  was 
established  at  Meaux,  where  his  pupil  and  patron, 
Brigonnet,  appointed  him  head  of  the  Leproserie  (nth 
August,  1521).  Here,  in  the  following  spring,  he  wrote 
the  preface  "  To  the  Christian  Readers  "  of  a  new  work 
on  which  he  had  been  engaged,  his  Commentaries  on  the 
Four  Gospels.3  This  book  issued  from  the  press  in 
June,  1522.  Like  his  previous  publications,  it  was 
entirely  in  Latin,  and,  consequently,  was  addressed 
to  the  educated,  especially  ecclesiastics  ;  moreover, 
according  to  his  usual  practice,  in  it  he  controverted 
no  defined  article  of  the  faith,  but  limited  himself  almost 
completely  to  the  inculcation  of  the  general  truths  of 
the  gospel  and  Christian  piety.4 

1  Ibid.,  85,  n.  2  and  3  ;  and  p.  168. 

2  Ibid.,  71,  n.io;  ep.  of  Erasmus  to  Fisher,  17th  October,  1519 — Eras. 
Op.,  Ill,  511D. 

3  The  title  of  the  book  is  :  Commentarii  Iniiiatorii  in  Quatuor  Evan- 
gelia,  etc.     The  colophon  reads  :    Meldis.      Impensis  Simonis  Colinaei. 

Anno  Salutis  Humanae.    MD.XXII.  Mense  lunio. 

4  lac.  Fabri  Stapulensis  ad  Christianos  Lectores,  in  sequens  Opus 
Praefatio,  a.  ij  ro.  At  this  point,  and  in  other  parts  of  this  preface, 
Lefevre  reproduces,  not  only  the  thoughts,  but  even  the  words,  of  Colet 
in  the  Hierarchies  of  Diouysius — See  Lupton's  edition,  p.  150.  But 
Lefevre  and  Briconnet  were  well  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the 
pseudo-Areopagite,  for  the  latter,  in  his  synodal  decree  of  15th  October, 
1523,  expressly  mentions  "  the  Blessed  Denis,  the  disciple  of  St.  Paul, 
whose  writings  come  next  after  the  Gospels  and  Apostolic  writings" — 
Herm.,  I,  154. 


"  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE  GOSPELS  "  259 

In  words  which  became,  in  later  times,  the  watch- 
word of  the  evangelical  party,  he  exclaimed1: — 

The  Word  of  God  suffices.  This  alone  is  guide 
enough  to  find  the  life  that  knows  no  end.  This  is  the 
only  rule,  the  only  instructress  of  eternal  life  :  all  other 
things,  whereby  God's  Word  affords  no  light,  are  not 
only  unnecessary,  but  even  superfluous. 

Referring  to  the  faith  and  missionary  zeal  of  the 
primitive  Church,  he  declared2: — 

There  has  been  no  age  from  the  time  of  Constantine, 
when  the  primitive  Church  began  to  fall  into  gradual 
decay,  wherein  existed  greater  knowledge  of 
languages,  more  numerous  discoveries  of  new  coun- 
tries, or  vaster  extents  of  territory  within  which  the 
name  of  Christ  has  penetrated,  than  the  present  epoch. 

These  concluding  words  refer  to  Reuchlin's  efforts  to 
disseminate  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  other 
Semitic  tongues,  the  revival  of  ancient  Greek  erudition, 
and  the  discovery  of  America  by  Columbus. 

Towards  the  end  of  his  preface,  Lefevre,  desiring  to 
mark  the  particular  value  of  his  present  Commentaries, 
made  use  of  a  Dionysian  method  of  illustration  ;  he 
explained  that  he  regarded  them  merely  as  commenta- 
ries of  purification,  and  therefore  entitled  them  Initia- 
torii,  as  introducing  the  reader  to  a  means  of  preparing 
his  mind  for  the  reception  of  a  greater  effulgence  of 
divine  light. 

Hardly  any  opinion  he  expressed  in  these  Commen- 
taries can  be  produced  which  differs  from  the  authorized 
beliefs  of  his  time.  If  he  mentions  Purgatory,  it  is  to 
advocate  the  commonly  received  ideas  about  it.3  If  he 
treats  of  the  sacraments,  whilst  he  emphasizes,  as  was 

1  lac.  Fabri  Stap.  Praef.,  a.  ij  vo. 

8  Ibid.,  a.  iij.  This  statement  regarding  the  decay  of  the  Church  was 
condemned  by  the  Sorbonne  in  1523 — Herm.,  I,  93,  n.4.  The  whole 
preface  ad  Christianos  Lectores  and  many  of  the  passages  referred  to  here 
are  ordered  by  the  Index  Expurgatorius  (1599),  and  Quiroga's  Index 
(1601),  to  be  deleted. 

3  Fol.  21  VO.-22  vo.  and  74  (St.  Matt.  v.  22,  xviii.  34) ;  fol.  228. 


260      OBSCURANTISTS   AND   CURIALISTS 

his  wont,  the  necessity  of  faith  to  their  validity,1  in  other 
respects  his  views  do  not  vary  to  any  noticeable  extent 
from  those  usually  held  by  the  well  informed  eccle- 
siastics of  his  time.8 

In  strict  accordance  with  the  opinions  he  had  put 
forward  in  his  previous  works,  Lef&vre  controverts  the 
notion  that  the  Church  is  founded  on  St.  Peter.8  He 
expounds  the  manner  in  which  the  Church  can  remit 
sins  as  altogether  symbolical,  the  actual  remission  being 
the  work  of  God  Himself.* 

Repentance  Lefevre  treats  after  the  style  of  Erasmus, 
emphasizing  the  spiritual,  rather  than  the  external,  or 
mechanical,  aspect  of  it,  and,  indeed,  he  adopts  the 
very  word  "resipiscere"  which  Erasmus  recommended 
as  the  most  correct  translation  of  the  Greek  phrase  for 
"  to  repent."  Lefevre  adds  that,  when  such  repentance 
has  taken  place,  then  mortification  of  the  flesh  and  other 
outward  acts  may  suitably  follow  as  signs  of  the  aban- 
donment of  the  evil  ways  of  the  previous  existence.* 

Not  in  one  comment,  but  in  several,  he  defines  the 
value  of  asceticism  and  of  works  done  as  a  means  to 
salvation.  And  here  he  approaches  closely  to  the 
Augustinianism  of  the  Protestant  theologians  of  later 
years — very  closely,  it  is  true,  but  with  a  marked 
difference  that  exhibits  the  conservative  basis  on  which 
all  his  religious  beliefs  and  instincts  rested  :  he  does 
not  deny  the  importance  of  works  done  in  obedience  to 

1  For  example,  at  fol.  291  et  scq.  (St.  John  vi.  58). 

2  That  he  believed  in  a  real,  corporeal  Presence  in  the  Eucharist  is 
observable  from  many  indications,  and  not  least  from  the  difficulty  he 
experienced  in  explaining  the  mode  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the  first 
Eucharist :  "  Totum  enim  extra  tunc  erat  sensibiliter  et  passibiliter  :  et 
totum  intra  sacramentaliter  et  impassibiliter." — Fol.  103  ro.-vo.  (St. 
Matt.  xxvi.  26). 

8  He  argues,  with  no  little  acuteness,  that  our  Lord's  words,  "  On  this 
Rock  {petra)  I  will  build  My  Church,"  must  relate  to  St.  Peter's  confes- 
sion of  the  Christ,  Whom  in  every  other  passage  petra  signifies — Fol. 
67  (St.  Matt.  xvi.  18).    Cp.  fol.  264  vo. 

4  Fol.  2"  fSt.  Matt.  vi.  12). 

6  Fol.  12  (St.  Matt.  iii.  2).    Cp.  also  fol.  46  (St.  Matt.  xi.  21). 


LEFEVRE'S   COMMENTS  261 

the  command  of  Christ,  but  he  subordinates  them  to 
faith  in  the  Saviour.1 

Conformably  with  these  opinions,  he  detei  mines  that 
Justification  must  be  accounted  entirely  the  gratuitous 
act  of  God." 

In  unequivocal  language,  Lefevre  asserts  that  the 
whole  Gospel  exists  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  in  them 
alone,  and  he  expresses  the  hope  that,  in  the  future,  it 
will  be  preached  purely  (that  is,  unmixed  with  human 
traditions)  which  is  not  yet  being  done  anywhere.3 

We  observe,  in  his  comments  on  the  Invocation  of 
Saints,  some  corroboration  of  the  story  that  purported 
to  explain  why  Lefevre  abandoned  the  biographies  of 
the  Saints  upon  which  he  had  been  engaged  a  couple  of 
years  before.  It  is  evident  that  he  had  pondered 
thoroughly  the  question  whether  miraculous  powers, 
such  as  those  ascribed  to  the  Saints,  were  tokens  of 
superior  holiness,  for  he  now  declared  his  conviction 
that  their  possession  would  not  of  itself  prove  the 
exalted  holiness  of  those  who  were  permitted  to  exer- 
cise them,4  and  that  worship,  on  account  of  miracles 
which  have  been  performed,  belongs  to  God  alone. 

His  discussion  of  this  subject  leads  him  to  consider 
whether  it  is  allowable  to  approach  Christ  through  the 
Blessed  Virgin  or  the  Saints,  and  he  decides  that — 

if  humility  alone  dictates  the  action  of  the  sup- 
plicant, his  faith  being  entirely  in  the  Father  of 
mercies  and  in  Christ  His  Son,  then  he  approaches 
worthily. 

1  Fol.  43  (St.  Matt.  x.  38)  and  fol.  272,  320  (St.  John  iii,  14,  15,  and  xi. 

sO- 

2  Fol.  233  (St.  Luke  xviii.  14)  :  "  Non  nobis  sed  soli  gratiae  dei 
tribuamus."    Cp.  fol.  76  et  seq. 

9  Fol.  151  (St.  Mark  xiii.  10).  See  also  fol.  275  vo.  (St.  John  iv.  1)  and 
277  vo.  (St.  John  iv.  33-4)-  It  must  be  remembered  that  many  questions 
upon  which  Lefevre  delivered  his  judgment  had  not  yet  been  defined  by 
authority.  One  of  these  was  the  relative  values  of  written  and  unwritten 
tradition — see  Berger,  La  Bible,  p.  137  et  seq. 

*  Sec  the  two  long  comments,  fol.  163  et  seq.  (St.  Mark  xvi.  17-18), 
and  fol.  336  et  seq.    (St.  John  xiv.  12) ;  also  fol.  181  (St.  Luke  iii.  15). 


262      OBSCURANTISTS   AND  CURIALISTS 

He  who  worships  Thee,  worships  Thee  above  all 
saintship  and  every  saint  in  Thee,  and  fulfils  the  truest 
form  of  worship.' 

Although  Lefevre,  with  his  intense  belief  in  the 
essentially  Catholic  constitution  of  the  Christian 
society,  lays  stress  on  the  mischievous  results  that  fol- 
low when  the  Church  is  divided  into  sects  and  parties, 
and  the  injury  which  is  thus  done  to  the  purity  of  Divine 
service,2  yet  he  refuses  to  approve,  in  certain  specified 
cases,  of  the  entire  supersession  of  the  judgment  of  the 
individual  by  the  authority  of  the  Church.3 

An  inspection  of  the  above  quoted  opinions  will 
reveal  the  cogency  of  an  assertion  that  Lefevre,  whilst 
eager  for  reform,  had  no  intention  of  breaking  with  the 
Catholic  Church.  Unquestionably,  some  of  them 
possessed  an  inherent  tendency  towards  what  were,  in 
subsequent  times,  denominated  Protestant  doctrines. 
But,  as  we  observed  with  regard  to  the  views  that  he 
put  forth  in  his  previous  works,  so  also  here  :  if  his 
opinions  be  weighed  carefully,  and  compared  with  the 
utterances  of  many  orthodox  divines  of  his  own  or 
earlier  dates,  they  will  be  found  to  differ  very  little,  if 
at  all,  from  sentiments  reputedly  Catholic  and  inof- 
fensive. There  is,  it  is  true,  a  strongly  marked  tendency 
in  the  book,  yet  this  is  directed  not  towards  any  change 
of  authorized  teaching,  but  an  enlightenment  of,  a 
pouring-out  of  Gospel-light  upon,  the  doctrines  already 
accepted.  That  such  an  illumination  would  have 
entailed  changes  was  a  consideration  quite  apart  from 
Lefevre 's  thought.  So  preoccupied  was  he  with  the 
idea  of  an  effulgence  of  Gospel-light  proceeding  from 
the  personal  intervention  of  Christ  Himself,  that  he  took 
no  note  of  what  might  possibly  be  the  effect  upon  the 

1  Fol.  323  :  "  Qui  te  colit  :  te  super  omnem  sanctitudinem,  &  in  te 
omnem  sanctum  colit,  impletque  omnem  in  veritate  cultum." 

2  Fol.  213  (St.  Luke  xii.  1). 

3  Fol.  278  (St.  John  iv.  42).  As  regards  the  commentaries  on  St. 
John's  Gospel,  Quiroga's  Index  (1601)  declares  that  the  passages  which 
require  to  be  expunged  are  so  numerous  that  it  were  best  to  expunge  all. 


HOPE   OF   REFORM  263 

prevalent  religious  dogmas.  However,  if  he  had, 
indeed,  even  for  a  moment,  contemplated  this  aspect  of 
the  matter,  he  would,  in  all  likelihood,  have  decided 
that,  if  the  advent  of  Christ  into  the  counsels  of  the 
Church  was  calculated  to  involve  alterations  in  the 
common  beliefs,  these  changes  would  be,  upon  that 
consideration,  not  only  justifiable  but  imperative.  For, 
beyond  doubt,  he  was  convinced  that  the  Christian 
Church  lay  in  a  state  of  darkness.1 

At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  this  book,  there  did, 
in  truth,  appear  to  be  a  possibility  that  his  earnest 
hopes  would  be  fulfilled.  Adrian  VI  had  succeeded  to 
the  papal  tiara,  and,  with  a  heart  filled  to  overflowing 
with  eager  desires  to  supply  the  spiritual  needs  of  the 
age,  had  aroused  hopes  in  many  quarters  that  the 
reforms  which  the  Church  was  so  earnestly  demanding 
would  now  be  seriously  undertaken.  Erasmus,  in  an 
epistle  addressed  to  the  new  pope  from  Basle,  1st 
August,  1522,  uttered  the  aspirations  of  a  large  body 
of  Christians  when  he  said  that  he  believed  no  eccle- 
siastic to  be  better  fitted,  at  the  present  juncture  of 
human  affairs,  than  Adrian  for  the  administration  of 
the  highest  office  in  the  Church.*  If  there  were  any 
doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  Erasmus's  words,  it  would 
be  dispelled  by  his  remark,  in  a  letter  which  he  sent  to 
the  Bishop  of  Palencia  a  few  months  earlier,  that  he 
expected  the  world  would  be  healed  of  its  disturbances 
by  the  might  of  the  Emperor  and  the  uprightness  of  the 
new  Pontiff.3 

There  were,  moreover,  still  existing  hopes  that  a 
satisfactory  issue  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  in  Germany  and 
Switzerland  might  be  found,  for,  as  yet,  no  «uch  irreme- 
diable acts  had  been  enterprised  as  would  have  threat- 
ened the  preservation  of  Catholic  unity  throughout 
Christendom.    But,  both  here  and  in  the  neighbouring 

1  Fol.  307  (St.  John  ix.  i). 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  72 if. 
1  Ibid.,  713E. 


264      OBSCURANTISTS  AND  CURIALISTS 

countries,  the  most  pressing  need  of  the  age  was  a 
reformation  which,  sagaciously  conducted  without 
delay  in  the  whole  ecclesiastical  domain — the  courts, 
public  worship,  religious  teaching  and  practice,  doctrine 
and  dogma,  the  various  classes  of  the  clergy  and  the 
functions  of  each — should  apply  to  all  a  definite  settle- 
ment upon  a  magnanimous,  statesmanlike,  and  yet 
truly  Christian,  basis. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

To  all  those  who  longed  for  an  advantageous  settle- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  affairs  the  year  1522  presented 
many  more  hopeful  indications  that  their  aspirations 
would  be  fuinlled  than  had  been  observable  at  any 
previous  epoch.  Nevertheless,  so  far  as  King  Francis 
was  concerned  he  had  not  yet  become  so  closely  attached 
to  the  cause  as  Briconnet  ardently  desired.  Indeed,  the 
Bishop,  towards  the  end  of  September,  1522,  advised 
Margaret  to  abstain,  for  the  time  being,  from  her  efforts 
to  gain  him  over.1 

About  the  same  time,  probably  in  reply  to,  or  at 
least  subsequently  to,  Briccr.uet's  letter,  the  Princess 
wrote  to  the  Bishop  in  order  to  report  the  effect  of 
Michel  d'Arande's  exhortations  upon  the  Queen- 
mother.  As  the  Court  was  about  to  be  trarib^red  from 
St.  Germain  en  Laye,  Margaret  urged  Briconnet  t  visit 
them  without  fail  when  they  should  have  accomplished 
their  journey,  as  the  most  feasible  means  of  advancing 
the  cause  he  had  at  heart.1  To  this  Briconnet  answered 
(20th  October)  that  he  was  glad  to  hear  that  God  had 
touched  the  heart  of  Madame,  and  he  hoped  that  the 

1  Herm.,  I,  105.  A  case  of  sacrilege  occurred  at  St.  Germain  en  Laye, 
for  which  the  guilty  man  was  burnt  alive  (23rd  September,  1522).  The 
culprit  was  a  common  robber,  whose  object  was  to  gain  possession  ot  a 
valuable  piece  of  church  plate.  For  all  that,  the  incident  may  have  had 
some  effect  in  turning  the  King  against  the  adoption  of  measures  of 
rei  irm — seethe  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  <le  Paris,  p.  158. 

2  Herm.,  I,  106. 

265 


266        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

result  would  appear  in  the  King  and  the  Princess  her- 
self. About  the  invitation  extended  to  him  his  epistle 
says  nothing,  but  perhaps  this  is  owing  to  the  fact  that 
only  a  fragment  of  the  letter  is  now  extant.1  Certainly, 
the  disposition  of  Louise  of  Savoy,  at  this  period, 
towards  the  adversaries  of  reform,  particularly  the 
mendicant  orders,  is  made  evident  by  an  entry  in  her 
diary2: — 

The  year  1522,  in  December,  my  son  and  I,  by  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  began  to  perceive  the  hypo- 
crites, black,  white,  grey,  brown,  and  of  all  colours, 
from  whom  may  God,  of  His  infinite  mercy  and  good- 
ness, defend  and  protect  us;  for  unless  Jesus  Christ 
lies,  there  is  no  more  dangerous  race  in  all  humanity. 

Early  in  1523,  the  Princess  sent  Bri^onnet  a  letter* 
which  is  most  important,  on  account  01  a  promise 
concerning  which  she  reminded  him.  There  is  some 
ground  for  assuming  that  she  here  alluded  to  a  French 
version  of  the  Bible  as  the  thing  promised.4  Briconnet's 
reply,  on  16th  January,  1523,  removes  the  last  vestige 
of  doubt  on  this  matter,8  and,  a  few  months  later,  the 
vernacular  translation  of  the  Gospels  issued  from  the 
printing-press  of  Simon  de  Colines  of  Paris.  The 
colophon  bears  date  "  The  year  of  Grace  One  Thousand 
five  hundred  and  XXIII,  the  8  day  of  the  month  of 
June." 

Ch  onologically,  this  was  not  the  first  French  version 
of  the  Bible.  Peter  the  Eater  (Petrus  Comestor),  who 
held  a  high  academic  position  at  Paris,  about  the 
middle  of  the  twelfth  century  published  the  Historia 
scholastic  a,  a  work  which  consisted  merely  of  extracts 
from  some  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
accompanied  by  explanations.  Towards  the  end  of  the 
following  century,  a  canon  of  St.  Peter's  at  Aire,  named 
Guiars  des  Moulins,  produced  a  translation  of  the  Bible, 
in  which  he  gave  the  text  of  the  historical  books  more 

1  Ibid.,  105,  n.  2.         2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.,  108.  *  Ibid.,  160. 

5  Ibid.,  1 09- 1 1. 


MEDIEVAL   FRENCH  VERSIONS        267 

completely  than  Peter,  with  a  commentary.  Guiars 
added  a  translation  of  the  prophetical  and  didactical 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  without  com- 
ments. He  called  his  version  La  Bible  hystoriee. 
During  the  middle  ages  it  was  extensively  read,  but  the 
translation  was  very  faulty,  and  in  some  parts  quite 
unintelligible.1 

Jean  de  Rely,  Bishop  of  Angers,  and  confessor  of 
King  Charles  VIII,  put  forth  a  version  of  the  Bible 
which,  in  fact,  constituted  nothing  else  than  a  new 
edition  of  the  Bible  of  Guiars  des  Moulins.  According 
to  a  remark  of  Lefevre 's,  it  must  have  been  published 
about  1487.  Lefevre,  indeed,  states  that  Rely  made  a 
new  translation,  with  the  King's  sanction  ;  but  he  is 
incorrect  in  this,  for  the  Bishop  of  Angers  only  touched 
up  the  already  existing  version.2  The  prefaces  to  this 
Bible  have  a  value  of  their  own  for  the  inquirer  into  the 
conceptions  of  the  period  regarding  the  use  and  know- 
ledge of  the  Bible.3 

In  the  course  he  adopted  for  the  production  of  his 
translation,  Lefevre  imitated  exactly  his  friend  and  pre- 
cursor. The  only  difference  between  the  two  versions 
was  that  the  latter  was  a  more  accurate  rendering  of  the 
sacred  text,  for,  though  Rely's  Bible  went  through 
numerous  editions  in  the  fifty  years  that  succeeded  its 
first  appearance,  it  still  remained  full  of  mistakes. 

Lefevre  published  his  version  in  two  parts  :  the  first, 
containing  the  Gospels,  in  June  ;  the  second,  containing 
the  remainder  of  the  New  Testament,  during  October 
and  November,  1523.  An  epistre  exhortatoire,  addressed 
"  To  all  Christians,"  accompanied  each  part.4 

In  the  earlier  of  these  prefaces,  he  asserted  that — 

men   and   their  doctrines   are   nothing,   except   when 
they  are  supported  by  the  Word  of  God, 

1  Graf,  pp.  67-9,  with  notes  209-14,  furnishes  ample  particulars  of 
these  two  early  French  versions.    Cp.  also  Berger,  La  Bible,  p.  9. 

2  Graf,  pp.  69-70  and  notes  215-7  ;  Herm.,  I,  160,  notes  2  and  3. 
8  Berger,  La  Bible,  p.  34. 

*  The  two  ipistres  are  given  by  Herminjard,  I,  133  et  seq.,  159  el  scq. 


268        THE  END  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

thus  anticipating  the  proposition  which,  in  subsequent 
times,  became  a  strong  bulwark  of  the  Protestant 
position.  It  is  true  that  Luther  made  it  his  vantage- 
ground  of  opposition  at  the  Diet  of  Worms  ;  but  we  are 
not  to  deduce  from  this  circumstance  that  the  French- 
man borrowed  the  thought  from  the  Saxon  ;  as  far 
back  as  1498  he  had  expressed  a  like  sentiment. 

He  began  his  second  exhortatory  epistle  with  the 
statement  that  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
revised  and  corrected  according  to  the  Latin  text,  had 
been  put  forth  at  the  instance  of  the  great  ladies  and 
princesses  of  the  realm,  for  the  edification  of  themselves 
and  others  in  the  kingdom. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  epistle,  he  asked  a 
pertinent  question  : — 

Who  then  is  he  that  will  not  deem  it  a  thing  con- 
venient to  salvation  to  have  this  New  Testament  in 
the  vulgar  tongue?  Wrhat  is  there  more  necessary  to 
life,  not  the  life  of  this  world,  hut  eternal  life? 

to  which  he  himself  replied  by  remarking  on  the  cir- 
cumstance that  in  the  monastic  orders  he  who  is  ig- 
norant of  Latin  is  permitted  to  have  his  rule  in  the 
vernacular  and  is  expected  to  carry  it  about  with  him, 
to  retain  it  in  his  memory,  and  to  exhibit  it  in  the 
chapter-meetings  of  his  society.  It  is  therefore  reason- 
able that  Christians  should  have  their  rule  in  the 
vernacular,  should  store  its  precepts  in  their  memory, 
should  carry  it  about  with  them  and  produce  it  at  their 
chapter-meetings  (i.e.,  at  church),  where  all  ought  to 
gather  to  hear  the  Word  of  God.  Lefevre  added  that  it 
was  the  King's  desire  that  the  life-giving  Word  of  God 
should  be  purely  preached  throughout  his  dominions.1 

1  Graf,  p.  77,  n.  222,  remarks  that  the  Sorbonne,  in  the  Index  of  15511 
denominates  "  die  Vorrede  zu  den  Evangelien  mit  Recht  eine  '  lutherische 
Epistel,'  eine  '  Epistel  welche  nach  der  Lehre  Luthers  schmeckt.'  " 
There  may  have  been  agreements  between  the  thought  of  Luther  and 
Lefevre,  but  the  latter's  doctrines  were  never  (at  least  in  his  intention) 
distinctively  Lutheran.  Observe  Poumergue's  remark  :  "  II  serait  plus 
facile  de  soutenir  que  Le  Fevre  n'a  jamais  6te  protestant,  que  de  faire 


LEFEVRE'S  VERSION  269 

Some  time  previous  to  this  issue  of  a  French  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  Briconnet  had  taken  into  his 
service  a  number  of  Lefevre's  former  pupils  with  the 
object  of  supplementing  the  defective  instruction  of 
his  diocese  in  matters  of  religion.  The  ordinary  paro- 
chial clergy  were  frequently  incapable  of  preaching  or 
giving  instruction ;  and  the  orders,  especially  the 
Franciscans,  only  attended  to  the  needs  of  the  most 
prosperous  districts.  Briconnet,  therefore,  though  he 
gave  due  consideration  to  the  claims  of  the  friars, 
supplied  the  vacant  districts  with  preachers  of  whose 
ability  he  had  clear  knowledge,  notably  Gerard  Roussel, 
Guillaume  Farel,  Francois  Vatable,  and  Michel 
d'Arande.1  We  have  seen  that  the  Bishop  had  already 
established  Lefevre  in  the  Leproserie  ;  in  May,  1523,  he 
constituted  his  old  preceptor  Vicar-general  of  the 
diocese  of  Meaux  in  spirituals.2 

Since  Luther's  vernacular  translation  of  the  Bible 
had  appeared  in  1522,  the  surmise  would  seem  natural 
that  the  German  suggested,  if  it  did  not  actually  con- 
tribute anything  to,  the  French  version.  It  may  have 
been  that  some  murmurs  began  to  arise  after  the  first 
part  of  Lefevre's  labours  had  been  published ;  perhaps 
suspicions  of  a  connection  in  aim  and  doctrine  between 
the  two  reformers  were  being  mooted  and  rendered 
plausible  by  the  somewhat  injudicious  utterances  of 
some  of  Briconnet's  special  preachers.  Whatever  was 
the  cause  of  his  action,  the  Bishop  deemed  it  advisable 
to  set  forth  two  synodal  decrees  on  15th  October  (that 
is  to  say,  a  few  weeks  before  the  second  part  of  the  New 
Testament  was  published),  the  one  addressed  to  "  The 
Faithful  of  the  Diocese  of  Meaux,"  and  the  other  to 

honneur  a  Luther  d'un  changemcnt  qui  ne  s'est  pas  opere\     Le  protes- 
tantisme  fabrisien  reste  une  realiteV'    (Tome  I,  545). 

In  the  action  brought  by  the  Franciscans  of  Meaux  against  Briconnet 
in  1525,  of  which  Bulaeus,  VI,  173-84,  gives  a  full  account,  there  was 
strong  opposition  shown  to  vernacular  versions  of  the  Bible. 

1  Graf,  p.  59  et  seq.  ;  cp.  also  p.  77. 

2  Herm.,  T,  i<;7.  n.  2. 


270        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

'  The  Clergy  "  of  the  diocese.1  In  the  former  he  in- 
veighed against  the  rashness  and  novelty  of  Martin 
Luther's  attempts  upon  the  hierarchical  order  ;  he 
accused  him  of  twisting  new  and  erroneous  interpreta- 
tions out  of  Holy  Scripture,  of  substituting  his  own  will 
for  properly  constituted  authority,  and  of  posing  as  a 
defender  of  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  whilst  he  was 
such  only  in  a  carnal  sense  and  not  according  to  the 
truth.  Consequently,  declared  Briconnet,  fearing  lest 
this  poisonous  plant  (i.e.,  Lutheran  doctrine)  should 
spread  its  roots  in  the  field  committed  to  his  care,  he 
conceived  it  to  be  his  duty  to  eradicate  it  utterly.  To 
this  end,  he  prohibited  throughout  the  diocese  the 
purchasing,  reading,  possessing,  and  hawking,  or  the 
approving,  defending,  and  discussing,  of  the  books  of 
the  said  Martin  Luther  ;  he  enjoined,  moreover,  on 
all  the  faithful  to  destroy  by  fire  such  of  these  books  as 
came  into  their  hands. 

The  synodal  decree  "To  the  Clergy"  particularized 
the  difficulties  Briconnet  had  encountered,  the  vexa- 
tions and  troubles  he  had  borne,  and  the  assaults  he  had 
endured,2  for  several  years  past,  on  account  of  his 
efforts  to  nourish  his  flock  with  evangelical  truth.  The 
Gospel,  he  said,  had  been  making  good  progress,  but 
some  persons  had  wrested  it  from  its  true  significance 
and  had  begun  to  preach  against  the  existence  of 
Purgatory,  and  therefore  against  Prayers  for  the  Dead, 
and  also  against  the  Invocation  both  of  the  Saints  and 
the  B.V.M.3     Of  these  unworthy  teachers  some  had 

1  IbM.,I,  153-8. 

2  Briconnet's  attempts  at  reform  roused  the  anger  of  many  of  his  paro- 
chial clergy  ;  but  his  principal  opponents  were  the  Franciscans  of  Meaux. 
Herminjard,  I,  156,  n.  t,  mentions  a  journey  to  Paris  which  Denis  de 
Briconnet,  Bishop  of  St.  Malo  and  Lodeve,  was  compelled  to  undertake, 
in  1521,  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  his  brother  against  his  accusers. 

•  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  Briconnet  here  animadverted  upon 
opinions  expressed  by  Lefevre,  and  therefore  presumably  held  by 
himself.  According  to  an  almost  contemporary  chronicle,  that  written 
by  Froment,  the  Bishop,  on  this  occasion,  yielded  to  hostile  pressure — 
Herm.,  I,  157-8. 


MEASURES  AGAINST  LUTHERANISM     271 

been  appointed  by  himself  to  the  office  of  preaching, 
but  he  now  withdrew  his  licence  because  they  were 
poisoning  the  ears  of  his  flock.  If  the  clergy  should 
hear  any  preach,  or  affirm  the  aforesaid  errors,  they  were 
to  hale  them  before  himself  and  to  forbid  them  to 
address  the  people. 

Before  another  two  months  had  passed,  Briconnet 
issued  a  mandate  to  his  clergy  (13th  December)  revoking 
all  preaching-licences,  except  those  which  the  Clemen- 
tine decretal  Dudion1  had  conferred.  He  asserted  that 
in  publishing  this  ordinance  he  had  been  prompted  by 
the  necessity  of  taking  precautions  against  the  diffusion 
of  Luther's  teachings. 

It  is  a  matter  for  conjecture  whether  Farel  was  one 
of  those  preachers  whose  inconsiderate  zeal  had 
provided  Briconnet's  vigilant  foes  with  the  opportuni- 
ties they  desired.  His  departure  from  Meaux  synchro- 
nizes so  well  with  the  issue  of  the  synodal  decrees  and 
mandate  that  one  is  almost  convinced  that  these  were 
in  some  way  connected  with  him.2  Farel,  however, 
appears  to  have  retained  the  friendship  of  the  Bishop 
and  his  assistants,  although  it  is  by  no  means  difficult 
to  observe  that  his  opinions  on  ecclesiastical  questions, 
both  doctrinal  and  administrative,  were  not  in  agree- 
ment with  theirs. 

But,  from  an  entry  in  the  diary  of  a  contemporary 
Parisian,  we  perceive  that  Briconnet's  denunciations 
were  part  of  a  wide  scheme  of  repression  directed  against 
the  spread  of  Lutheranism  in  France.  The  King  and 
his  mother,  the  Queen-Regent,  by  advice  of  their 
council,  had  despatched,  at  this  time,  numbers  of 
preachers  throughout  France,  "  pour  prescher  la  foy 
catholique,  pour  abattre  et  adnichiller  les  heresies  de 

1  A  papal  decretal  of  1300  a.d.,  by  which  the  Dominicans  and  Fran- 
ciscans were  permitted  to  preach  not  only  in  their  own  churches  but  also 
in  public  places  and  parochial  churches —  Ibid.,  I,  172,  n.  4. 

1  Ibid.,  I,  178  et  seq.  A  useful  handbook  on  Farel  is  Chas.  Schmidt, 
Etudes  sur  Farel,  These  de  Strasbourg,  1834. 


272        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

Luther,"  and  had  provided  them  with  the  necessary 
funds.1 

In  the  isolated  position  in  which  the  Bishop  of  Meaux 
found  himself,  at  this  juncture,  he  realized  how  much 
he  needed  the  support  of  his  own  order.  His  brother 
Denis,  and  perhaps  one  or  two  more  of  the  bishops, 
may  have  regarded  his  aims  favourably  ;  but,  as  an 
order,  the  French  bishops,  whether  aware  of  his  desires 
or  not,  stood  aloof,  and  showed  no  inclination  to  follow 
his  example.  So  long  as  the  rest  of  the  episcopate 
remained  unsympathetic,  no  permanence  of  success 
could  be  ensured  for  the  measures  instituted  in  the 
diocese  of  Meaux.  Briconnet  felt  the  force  of  this 
consideration,  and,  accordingly,  he  entreated  Margaret 
to  employ  her  influence  over  the  King  so  that  vacant 
bishoprics  might  be  filled  by  clergy  who  would  attend  to 
the  evangelization  of  their  flocks.8  The  Princess  herself 
had,  only  a  short  time  previously,  remarked  how  few 
bishops  bestowed  as  much  care  on  their  flocks  as  Bri- 
connet.3 That  prelate  now  insisted  that  she  should  not 
inform  him  that  the  times  were  not  convenient  for 
taking  the  step  he  was  suggesting,  since  "it  was  always 
seasonable  to  do  good,"  and  if,  when  the  opportunity 
offered,  it  were  not  seized,  God's  anger  would  be 
kindled.  Her  reply  to  this  letter  is  dated  9th  February.4 
She  demurely  expressed  her  grief  at  having  been  un- 
conscious that  "  the  hour  had  come,"  and  requested 
Briconnet  and  "  Monsieur  Fabry  and  all  your  friends  " 
to  pray  for  her  that  she  might  be  awakened  from 
her  sleep  and  freed  from  her  shortcomings  in  this 
respect.    To  this  the  Bishop  made  answer,8  that  it  was 

1  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  p.  187. 

2  Ep.  of  3 1st  January,  1 2524 — Herm.,  I,  186-8.  It  is  well  to  remember 
that  Francis  had  obtained  by  means  of  the  Concordat  the  power  of 
nominating  to  the  French  sees,  and,  in  spite  of  the  protests  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Paris  and  the  clergy,  he  exercised  this  power — see  Journal  d'un 
Bourgeois  de  Paris,  pp.  37-8,  63-5,  69-70,  and  Creighton,  V,  265. 

8  Herm.,  I,  187,  n.  3.  *  Ibid.,  I,  189. 

8  Ep.  of  1 2th  February —  Ibid.,  I,  190. 


EFFORTS  OF  PRINCESS  MARGARET    273 

not  the  Princess,  but  the  episcopal  order,  which  re- 
quired to  be  aroused  ;  that  the  work  (of  reform)  was 
difficult,  yet  God  could  render  it  easy  to  His  chosen 
vessels.  Briconnet  thereupon  solicited  the  royal  family 
to  endeavour  seriously  to  accomplish  the  work. 

Margaret,  indeed,  so  far  as  her  personal  authority 
extended,  did  what  she  could,  for,  towards  the  close 
of  1523,  she  had  arranged  with  Briconnet  that  Michel 
d'Arande  should  proceed  to  Bourges,  in  her  duchy  of 
Berry,  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  the  Gospel  there.1 
But  to  this  course  the  Archbishop  of  Bourges  objected  ; 
he  forbade  Michel  to  preach  (22nd  February,  1524), 
and  threatened  with  excommunicaton  all  who  should 
listen  to  him.  The  prelate's  resistance  to  her  well 
meant  project  caused  Margaret  no  little  anxiety  lest 
her  emissary  should  be  made  to  suffer  for  his  obedience 
to  her  behests.8  Briconnet  strove  to  allay  her  distress,3 
but  he  pointed  out  that  the  Archbishop  was  exercising 
his  lawful  authority,  though  in  a  harsh  manner.  There 
was,  consequently,  he  added,  all  the  more  reason  why 
the  King  and  Madame  should  apply  their  attention  to 
the  appointment  of  worthy  bishops.' 

From  the  correspondence  of  the  French  reformers 
during  this  year  (1524),  it  is  evident  that  the  resistance 
presented  to  their  efforts  began  to  alter  their  attitude 
towards  the  authorities  of  the  Church.  At  least  this 
is  true  of  some  of  them.  All  the  reformers  then  enter- 
tained the  warmest  feelings  of  friendship  for  one  another, 
though  there  were  differences  of  opinion  among  them 
concerning  the  most  suitable  means  to  be  adopted  for 
bettering  the  state  of  religion.'     Yet,  some  of  them 

1  Ibid.,  I,  205,  n.  3.  *  Ibid.,  I,  192. 

3  Ibid..  I,  198-9  and  200-1,  epp.  of  24th  and  25th  February. 

4  The  King  punished  the  Archbishop  for  his  action  against  Arande  by 
depriving  him  of  his  temporalities — see  Farel's  ep.  to  Schcffer,  2nd  April, 
1524,  ibid.,  199,  n.  10,  206. 

6  For  instance,  Lefevre,  writing  to  Farel  at  the  end  of  April,  1 524,  sends 
cordial  greetings  to  Zwingli  and  (Ecolampadius,  and  conveys  to  Farel  those 
of  Roussel,  Papilion,  and  Nicolas  Le  Sueur — Ibid.,  I,  206. 


274         THE   END   OF   THE   MOVEMENT 

began  now  to  aim  at  the  initiation  of  a  forward  policy, 
although  conscious  that  a  schism  might  result  there- 
from. But  such  a  contingency  was  abhorrent  to  the 
minds  of  Lefevre  and  his  friends.  Indeed,  if  from  this 
period  CEcolampadius,  Zwingli,  Farel,  and  their  sup- 
porters, be  taken  as  forming  a  progressive,  evangelical 
party,  the  French  royal  family,  Briconnet,  Lefevre,  and 
Erasmus,  with  their  sympathizers,  must  be  regarded 
as  a  conservative  and  Catholic  party  among  the 
reformers.  One  who  had  an  opportunity  of  observing 
Erasmus  closely  at  the  beginning  of  1523  said  of  him  : 
"  Erasmus  has  no  desire  to  be  a  Lutheran,  but  neither 
is  he  an  enemy  of  Luther's."1  In  other  words,  Erasmus 
found  it  impossible  to  approve  of  all  that  Luther  was 
saying  and  doing,  and  just  as  difficult  to  condemn  him 
altogether.  Quite  as  strongly  as  Luther  he  had  in- 
veighed against  ecclesiastical  abuses  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  but,  for  all  that,  he  never  lost  the  hope  that 
the  alterations  he  advocated  would  be  conducted  in  and 
by  the  Church  herself.  And  we  shall  presently  see  how 
bitterly  angry  he  became  at  the  attempts  made  by  the 
Evangelicals  to  bring  him  over  to  their  side. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that,  in  consequence  of 
the  influence  which  the  famous  Theological  Faculty  of 
Paris  possessed  over  the  popular  mind  in  France,  the 
hostility  of  that  great  body  of  theologians  proved  to 
be  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  introduction  of  even  mod- 
erate schemes  of  reform  into  the  Gallican  Church.  Led 
by  men  like  Noel  Beda  and  Duchesne,  the  obscurantists 
rendered,  or  sought  to  render,  independent  thought 
impossible,  and  tried  to  trammel  theological  learning 
within  the  meshes  of  their  own  syllogisms.  Yet 
Briconnet  held  a  position  of  dignity  in  connection  with 
the  Parisian  University,  and,  in  all  probability,  had 
many  favourers  of  his  views  amongst  the  members  of 
the  other  Faculties.  The  Theological  tribunal,  how- 
ever, still  remained  so  powerful,  though  Lou  vain  had 

1  Ibid.,  I,  212,  n.  12. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE   WORK         275 

begun  to  rival  it  in  prestige,  that  Briconnet,  in  spite 
of  encouragement  from  the  royal  family,  felt  himself 
bound  to  promote  his  designs  with  caution  and  circum- 
spection. From  the  letter  of  Nicolas  Le  Sueur  to  Fare],1 
it  is  evident  that  the  Sorbonne  had  the  support  of  the 
Parliament  of  Paris.8  It  followed  that,  during  the 
period  which  we  are  now  reviewing,  the  operations 
carried  on  by  the  moderate  reformers  of  Meaux  ex- 
tended hardly  at  all  beyond  the  limits  of  the  districts 
in  which  they  were  working.  We  have,  therefore,  to 
acknowledge  that,  although  Lefevre,  Roussel,  Arande, 
and  Vatable,  were  seeking  to  infuse  the  light  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  into  the  popular 
religion,  and  the  people  were  willingly,  even  gladly, 
accepting  their  ministrations,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
their  plans  were  making  any  real  or  extensive  progress. 
Lefevre,  in  a  letter  to  Farel  (6th  July,  1524),  related 
that,  throughout  the  diocese  of  Meaux,  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel  were  read  every  Sunday,  and  on  Holy-days, 
in  the  French  tongue,  and  that  this  was  done  conform- 
ably with  the  wish  of  the  King  ;  he  added  that  his 
version  of  the  New  Testament  was  well  received  by  the 
people.8  But  the  letter  of  Gerard  Roussel  to  the  same 
correspondent,  which  accompanied  Lefevre's,  revealed 
no  such  optimistic  outlook.*  Perhaps  Roussel,  occupy- 
ing a  place,  as  it  were,  in  the  fighting-line,  was  more 
fitted  to  observe  the  true  state  of  things  than  the 
benevolent  visionary  who  had  planned  the  campaign. 
He  could  not  help  exclaiming  that  France  sorely  needed 
reformers  who  would  carry  on  the  work  with  a  bold 
courage,  men  of  strong  character  like  some  of  the  Swiss 
Evangelicals.     He  realized,  probably  more  accurately 

1  Ep.  to  Farel,  dated  Meaux,  15th  May,  1524 —  Ibid.,  I,  216  et  seq. 

2  The  Parliament,  for  example,  in  accordance  with  the  desires  of  the 
Sorbonne,  prohibited  the  publication  of  religious  books  on  13th  June, 
1 521,  and  again  on  21st  March,  1522.  The  Sorbonne  (26th  August,  1523) 
decided  against  the  popularization  of  the  Bible  (or  part  of  it)  and  tried 
to  induce  Parliament  to  interdict  the  sale  of  the  vernacular  version.  In 
this  they  failed,  probably  through  the  opposition  of  the  King  — Ibid.,  I, 
218,221.  •  Ibid.,  I,  220  et  seq .  l  Ibt.t.,  T,  232  rt  seq. 


276        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

than  Lefevre,  that  the  recent  decree  of  the  Parliament 
of  Paris,  viz.,  that  no  theological  composition  should 
be  printed  unless  it  first  received  the  approbation  of  the 
Theological  Faculty  of  Paris  University,  was  a  decree — 
however  easily  it  might,  in  particular  cases,  be  over- 
borne by  a  royal  mandate — destructive  to  mental  and 
religious  freedom  and  a  fatal  hindrance  to  the  promo- 
tion of  a  purer  Christianity  than  was  prevalent.  If  the 
Sorbonne  had  not  been  dominated  by  the  party  of  Beda, 
Duchesne,  and  other  champions  of  a  narrow  and 
degenerate  form  of  scholastic  philosophy,  a  decree  of 
this  kind  might  possibly  have  been  a  serviceable  instru- 
ment for  the  enlightened  guidance  of  public  thought 
in  matters  affecting  religion.  As  it  was,  the  Sorbonne 
aimed  merely  at  the  stifling  of  intellectual  progress,  the 
checking  of  every  kind  of  advance  in  knowledge.  Such 
a  position  at  that  particular  epoch,  when  men's  intel- 
lects were  awakening  from  an  age-long  sleep,  was 
clearly  untenable  ;  but  it  would  have  gathered  around 
it  some  elements  of  melancholy  and  pathetic  grandeur, 
if  it  had  not  been  defiled  by  a  relentless,  even  sanguinary 
zeal.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  many  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  Beda  and  his  colleagues  persecuted  those 
who  differed  from  them  were  not  the  articles  of  faith 
which  the  highest  authorities  of  the  Church  had  defined, 
but  such  as  had  been  only  recently  promulgated  by  the 
Sorbonne  itself,  that  is  to  say,  by  Beda  and  his  inti- 
mates, for  they  forced  their  own  views  on  the  Faculty, 
in  consequence  of  the  preponderance  of  their  party  in  it. 
Stated  briefly,  a  small  body  of  theologians,  and  these  by 
no  means  the  most  remarkable  for  learning  or  sound 
judgment,  not  only  legislated  for  the  Catholic  Church 
on  undefined  points  of  doctrine  and  practice,  but 
compelled  the  Church  to  obey  them.  So  arrogant  did 
B£da,  glutted  with  success,  become  in  later  years  that 
the  King  found  it  necessary  to  punish  and  to  banish 
him  from  Paris.1 

1  Journal  i'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  p.  453  ;  ep.  of  Barth^lemi  Masson  to 


PATIENCE  AND   FAITH  277 

But,  during  1524,  the  opposition  of  the  Sorbonne  and 
the  Parliament  caused  the  moderate  reformers,  who  had 
no  original  intention  of  disturbing  the  administrative 
authorities  or  the  accredited  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
to  remark  their  own  weakness  in  comparison  with  the 
strength  of  the  Germans  and  to  waver  in  their  allegiance 
to  their  Catholic  ideals.  Their  Teutonic  friends,  and 
those  of  their  compatriots  who  had  thrown  in  their  lot 
with  the  Germans,  were  urging  them  to  a  stouter  resis- 
tance and  to  show  a  greater  independence  in  principle 
and  method.1  Apparently,  both  Farel  and  (Ecolam- 
padius  were  endeavouring  to  persuade  Roussel  to  hold 
public  disputations  and  to  display  a  more  courageous 
front  to  the  enemies  of  the  Gospel.*  Roussel  himself, 
at  this  time,  would  have  been  glad  to  take  an  intrepid 
course  as  being  more  likely  to  prove  advantageous  to 
the  task  he  had  in  hand.  He  reminded  Farel,  however, 
that  the  friends  with  whom  he  was  working  thought 
otherwise.    For  these  said — 

Not  yet  has  the  convenient  opportunity  arrived. 
...  If  God  has  not  called  us  to  the  work,  shall  we 
go?  .  .  .  Is  it  not  better  to  possess  that  faith  which 
submits  all  things  to  the  will  of  God,  and  patiently 
abides  the  operation  of  Deity? 

And  whilst  they  thought  it  possible  that  Farel's  eager- 
ness might  accord  with  the  divine  intention,  they 
believed  that  God  approves  of  zeal  only  when  human 
wishes  are  ready  to  submit  to  modification  or  rejection 
at  His  will. 

This  patient  reliance  upon  the  will  of  God,  which 
filled   the   pious   hearts   of   Briconnet,9   Lefevre,   and 

Erasmus,  29th  June,  1535 — Herm.,  Ill,  306,  and  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1505D  ; 
Graf,  p.  204. 

1  Ep.  of  G£colampadiu9  to  the  Seigneur  de  Marcheferri^re,  a  relative 
of  Briconnet,  31st  July,  1524 — Herm.,  1,248  etseq.,  and  III,  195. 

2  Ibid.,  I,  271-3  and  274-8. 

8  Briconnet,  writing  to  the  Princess  Margaret,  24th  February,  1524, 
in  reference  to  the  perils  which  hung  over  Michel  d'Arande  at  Bourge», 


278        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

Roussel  also,  constituted  a  wall  of  separation  between 
the  Catholic  reformers  of  Meaux  and  their  Evangelical 
friends  of  Switzerland  and  Germany.  But,  in  truth,  the 
advice  that  suited  the  conditions  of  the  Teutonic  portion 
of  Christendom  unquestionably  did  not  agree  with  those 
of  the  Gallican.  Quite  apart  from  the  patient  waiting  for 
the  call  of  God,  the  possibilities  of  success  that  were 
likely  to  attend  a  militant  reforming  movement  were 
contingent  upon  forces  which  in  France  scarcely  existed, 
but  flourished  in  Germany.  What  these  forces  were, 
and  the  power  they  possessed,  Roussel  \va«  acute  enough 
to  perceive.  To  (Ecolampadius  he  pointed  out  that  a 
public  disputation  on  the  Gospel  would  take  place  in 
Switzerland  or  Germany  under  widely  different  circum- 
stances from  those  of  a  disputation  at  Paris  : — 

How  can  I,  alone  and  without  fame,  hope  to  con- 
front the  vast  numbers  of  Parisian  theologians,  all  of 
them  possessing  great  reputations,  who  would  be  to 
me  as  a  stone  wall !  It  is  not  of  him  who  wills  or  him 
who  runs,  but  of  God  Who  sends.  ...  If  the  season 
of  the  harvest  of  the  Gospel  has  arrived  for  you,  it 
does  not  follow  that  it  has  also  arrived  for  us.  ...  I 
can  easily  gauge  the  difficulties  before  me  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  my  appointed  task  when  I  see  almost 
the  whole  Parliament  ranged  up  the  opposite  side.1 

As  an  illustration  of  the  power  of  the  Sorbonnists, 
Roussel  referred  to  the  edict  which  the  Parliament 
had  already  promulgated  at  the  instance  of  the  Sor- 
bonne,  that  no  books  on  religion  were  to  be  published 
at  Paris  without  the  express  permission  of  the  Theo- 
logical Faculty  being  first  obtained.8  And  thereupon 
Roussel  very  aptly  exclaimed  : — 

If  the  bishops,  the  theologians,  the  schools,  shout 
their  disapprobation,  and  the  people  and  the  Parlia- 

and  the  anxiety  of  the  royal  lady,  used  similar  language  concerning 
evangelical  zeal  —  Ibid.,  I,  273,  n.  9. 

1  He  means  that  Parliament  was  prepared  to  execute  any  request  of 
the  Sorbonne  —  Ibid.,  I,  277,  n.  8,  234. 

2  A  distinct  advance  upon  the  decree  of  the  Lateran  Council. 


MELDOIS  AND  TEUTONS  279 

ment  agree  with  them,  what  shall  one  poor  man  do 
against  so  many  lions? 

Nowhere  more  clearly  than  in  these  two  letters  of 
Roussel's  has  the  position  of  the  reformers  of  Meaux 
been  delineated.  The  difficulties  which  they  ex- 
perienced were  such  as  always  attend  those  who  occupy 
a  middle  station.  On  the  one  hand,  the  obscurantists 
were  defending  the  worst  features  of  the  existing 
system  and  opposing  all  attempts  to  improve  it ;  on 
the  other,  the  Lutherans  and  Zwinglians,  in  their 
eagerness  for  reform,  were  moving  forward  with  a 
rapidity  and  an  independence  of  Church  order  that 
threatened  Christianity  with  what  seemed  anarchy  and 
schism.  From  both  the  Meldois  brotherhood  recoiled, 
but  it  was  not  unnatural  if  some  of  their  company 
began  now  to  fancy  that  an  adoption  of  Teutonic  ideas 
might  possibly  give  greater  effect  to  their  teachings 
and  greater  strength  to  their  position.  About  this 
time,  accordingly,  the  reformers  of  Meaux  betrayed 
an  inclination  towards  Lutheran  opinions,  especially 
those  which  they  had  always  regarded  as  academically 
true  but  opposed  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church 
in  practice,  and  which,  a  few  years  later,  they  dis- 
carded utterly.1 

The  advice  that  Farel  and  the  Swiss  reformers  had 
sent  to  Meaux  was,  no  doubt,  prompted  by  their  own 
determination  to  advance  more  boldly.  Erasmus,  at 
Basle,  had  to  endure  some  pressure  from  them,  by  the 
majority  applied  in  a  friendly  manner,  but  by  one  or 
two  with  greater  importunity  than  was  agreeable  to 
him.     Among  the  latter  Farel  was  the  chief  offender, 

1  There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  Dr.  Graf  is  correct  when  he  states 
(Zeitschrift,  etc.,  p.  78  et  seq.)  that.  Lefevre's  Les  Epistres  et  Evangiles  des 
cinquante  et  deux  Dimanchcs  de  Van  d  V usage  du  dioecese  de  Meaux,  which 
appeared  early  in  1525,  exhibit  a  distinct  inclination  towards  Lutheran 
ideas,  and  contain  harsher  allusions  to  opponents  than  any  other  work  of 
his.  The  Sorbonne  discovered  no  less  than  forty-eight  heretical  state- 
ments in  this  book  and  (6th  November)  condemned  them  as  diabolica 
invtnta  et  haereticorum  ligmcnta — Graf,  p.  175. 


280        THE  END  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

and,  consequently,  Erasmus's  epistles  of  this  date  are 
full  of  bitter  complaints  of  Farel,  whom,  in  derision,  he 
called  "  Phallicus."  If  the  Evangelicals  had  left  him 
undisturbed  at  Basle,  Erasmus  would  probably  have 
refrained  from  criticizing  them  severely,  but  they  were 
eager  to  secure  the  support  of  a  man  of  his  vast  repu- 
tation and  abilities  for  that  active  propagandism  of 
evangelical  ideas  which  they  had  in  contemplation. 
But,  to  them,  Erasmus  was  an  even  more  incompre- 
hensible problem  than  Briconnet  or  Lefevre.  At  one 
time  he  expressed  himself  well  disposed  towards  those 
who  wished  for  a  betterment  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.1 
Nay,  his  own  works  revealed  plainly  that  he  himself 
desired  it,  and  that  strongly.  But,  nevertheless,  he 
politely  but  firmly  refused  to  attach  himself  to  any  side 
in  a  controversy  about  it  which  showed  the  slightest 
likelihood  of  eventuating  in  the  formation  of  parties. 
Now,  when  Lutheranism  had  developed  into  a  powerful 
antagonist  of  the  papal  imperium,  he  felt  still  less  in- 
clined to  lend  his  assistance  to  what  made,  according 
to  his  judgment,  parties  in  the  Church,  in  fact,  schism. 
For  all  that,  he  had  already  given  utterance  to  a  large 
number  of  the  notions  that  constituted  the  principles 
on  which  Lutheranism  rested,  and  all  men  recognized 
that  some  at  least  of  his  sympathies  were  with  the 
Lutherans.  Yet,  in  spite  of  everything  (even  his  own 
words)  and  everyone,  he  remained  apart.  He  wished 
for  reform,  but  he  also  wished  to  continue  a  Catholic. 
His  attitude,  however,  was  too  ambiguous  to  suit  the 
plans  of  either  side.  By  the  beginning  of  1523, *  the 
state  of  affairs  in  the  ecclesiastical  world  had  arrived 
at  such  a  point  as  laid  Erasmus  under  the  necessity  of 
declaring,  openly  and  definitely,  on  which  side  he  stood. 
With  his  innate  astuteness  he  managed  to  hold  out  for 

1  Herm.,  I,  212,  n.12:  "Faveo  bonis  studiis,  faveo  veritati  Evangeli- 
cae  :  id  vel  tacitus  faciam,  si  palam  non  licet."  These  words  he  uttered 
in  1520. 

*  Ep.  of  Glareanus  toZwingli,  20th  January,  1523 — Ibid. 


ERASMUS  281 

neutrality  for  a  considerable  time  longer.  Towards  the 
end  of  that  year,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  he  permitted 
some  of  the  orthodox  to  imagine  him  an  anti-Lutheran,1 
and  he  was  not  altogether  that.  It  was  in  1524  that 
Farel  and  his  friends  sought  to  make  Erasmus  declare 
himself.  Farel's  bold,  sometimes  rash,  nature  could 
never  brook  anything  like  temporizing  or  trimming. 
But  his  interview  with  Erasmus  resulted  in  nothing 
save  an  embitterment  of  their  relations  with  each  other. 
The  Dutch  scholar  was  evidently  thinking  of  Farel 
when  he  wrote1  that — 

Some  Frenchmen  are  even  madder  than  the 
Germans.  All  of  them  have  five  words  on  their  lips  : 
Gospel,  Word  of  God,  Faith,  Christ,  and  Spirit.  Yet 
I  behold  here  many  who,  I  have  no  doubt,  are  actuated 
by  the  spirit — of  Satan  ! 

To  Melanchthon  he  said*: — 

Shall  we  pull  down  lords,  popes,  and  bishops  in 
order  to  make  room  for  worse  tyrants — scurvy  Othos* 
and  raving  Phallici.  There  was  an  extremely  short 
interview  between  us,  but  he  has  made  quite  a  book  of 
it.  .  .  .  He  calls  me  Balaam,  because  Pope  Adrian 
asked  me  for  my  advice.  I  did  send  some,  but  the 
pontiff  was  not  satisfied ;  he  offered  me  a  deanery, 
which  I  refused ;  he  expressed  a  wish  to  forward 
money  to  me,  but  I  told  him  not  to  send  a  penny.  And 
therefore  I  am  Balaam  !  .  .  .  They  (he  means  the 
Evangelicals)  appear  to  me  to  be  a  new  kind  of  hypo- 
crites with  not  an  atom  of  the  true  evangelical  spirit 
among  them. 

It  is  certain  that  others  besides  Erasmus  held  this 
view,  if  not  of  Farel  (as  in  Erasmus's  case),  at  any  rate 
of  those  impatient  and  incautious  reformers  who  were 

1  He  evidently  intended  Henry  VIII  to  think  so  of  him  (4th  September, 
1523) — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  773B. 

2  Ep.  to  Theod.  Hezius,  2nd  September,  1524  —  Ibid.,  809B. 
8  Ep.  of  6th  September,  1524 — Ibid.,  818B-819D. 

*  Herm.,  I,  289,  n.  1,  suggests  that  this  is  an  allusion  to  Otho  Brunfeli, 
who  had  taken  the  part  of  Ulrich  von  Hutten,  then  deceased,  againtt 
Eraimui.    Cp.  ibid.,  224,  n.  29  and  30. 


282        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

striving  to  make  rapid  progress.  Not  the  least  re- 
markable part  of  the  denunciations  uttered  against 
these  ardent  spirits  is  the  statement  that  Luther  and 
his  adherents  would  disapprove  of  them  and  their 
reckless  proceedings  strongly,  if  they  knew  them  well 
enough.1 

The  attempt  to  promote  a  wide  and  speedy  diffusion 
of  evangelical  truth,  especially  in  districts  where  the 
Church  authorities  were  hostile,  had  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  rousing  the  enemies  of  reform  to  greater 
vigour.  Force  met  force,  too  eager  zeal  in  advancing 
encountered  an  augmented  zeal  in  repelling.  The 
increased  Evangelical  activities  of  1524  produced  a 
crop  of  martyrdoms  in  1525.  Pierre  de  Sebiville  was 
burnt  at  Grenoble  in  February;8  Aime  Maigret,  taken 
prisoner  at  Lyons  and  conveyed  to  Paris  by  order  of  the 
Queen-mother,  was  put  on  trial; *  the  Sorbonne  attacked 
Caroli  on  account  of  his  preaching ;  *  Mazurier  was 
thrown  into  prison ; 6  Jean  Clerc,  a  working-man  of 
Meaux,  was  burnt  at  Metz  with  revolting  cruelties ;  • 
Chastellain  was  burnt  near  Metz ; 7  Wolfgang  Schuch, 
a  preacher  of  St.  Hippolyte,  suffered  at  Nancy;8 
Saunier  and  Pauvan,  of  Meaux,  were  put  in  prison  at 
Paris,  and  the  latter  was  burnt  early  in  the  next  year. 
In  August,  the  friars  of  Meaux  renewed  their  accusa- 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  824B  :  "  Si  Lutherus  no9set  Phallicum,  non  dubito 
quin  in  eum  stricturus  sit  stilum."  Glareanus,  writing  to  Myconius,  4th 
September,  1524,  gives  a  similar  estimate  of  the  ardent  Evangelicals — 
Herm.,  I,  290,  n.  10. 

2  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  p.  227-8. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  226.  The  grounds  of  accusation  against  him  are  recited 
by  Herm.,  I,  323,  n.  5. 

4  Graf,  p.  170;  Bulaeus,  VI,  174;  Herm.,  I,  292,  n.  6;  ep.  of  the 
Sorbonne — Ibid.,  378  et  seq. 

6  Graf,  pp.  173-4. 

8  Ep.  of  Lambert  to  the  Senate  of  Besancon,  15th  August,  1525 — 
Herm.,  I,  371  et  seq. 

7  Ep.  of  Lambert  to  the  Elector  Frederick  of  Saxony,  March,  1525 — 
Ibid.,  I,  344  et  seq. 

9  Ibid.,  1,375,  "•  2- 


RELIGIOUS  ACTIVITIES  283 

tions  against  the  Bishop,  and  incriminated  Lefevre  for 
his  Commentary  on  the  Holy  Gospels,  in  which,  they 
asserted,  were  to  be  found  several  heretical  propo- 
sitions.1 

The  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Meaux  was,  at  this 
juncture,  one  of  extreme  difficulty,  exposed  as  he  was 
to  the  impatience  of  the  militant  section  of  the  Evan- 
gelicals and  the  blind  fury  of  the  obscurantists.  On  the 
one  hand,  he  had  occasion  to  issue,  on  21st  January, 
1525,  a  mandate  to  his  clergy2  resenting  bitterly  certain 
mischievous  acts  that  had  been  perpetrated  in  his  cathe- 
dral and  diocese  by  some  too  iconoclastically  minded 
reformers.  Shortly  afterwards,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
was  constrained  by  the  Parliament  to  authorize  the 
examination  of  Saunier  and  Pauvan  by  the  four 
commissioners  appointed  for  that  purpose,3  of  whom 
two  were  Duchesne  and  Nicole  Le  Clerc,  the  intimate 
friends  of  Beda.  A  papal  bull  reached  Parliament  in 
June,  and  about  the  same  time  the  University  received 
letters  from  the  Pope  and  Queen-mother,  all  three 
documents  urging  active  proceedings  against  the 
favourers  of  "  Lutheran  "  heresy. 

The  Evangelicals,  for  their  part,  were  not  idle.  If 
the  Cantons  and  the  Pays  du  Vaud  drew  up  protests 
against  the  new  preachers4  or  the  teaching  of  Luther- 
anism,4  and  the  Sorbonne  devoted  its  manifold  energies 
to  the  extinction  of  the  Meldois  brotherhood,  Zwingli 
himself  addressed  a  letter  to  King  Francis  begging  him 
to  silence  the  Sorbonne  and  to  protect  those  of  his 
subjects  who  were  endeavouring  to  extend  the  cultiva- 
tion of  literature  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.8 
The  advanced  Evangelicals,  moreover,  were  now  taking 

1  Bulaeus,  VI,  183.  2  Herm.,  I,  320  et  seq.  3  Ibid.,  391,  n.  7. 

4  Ibid.,  307  et  seq.  8  Ibid.,  354  et  seq. 

6  Ep.  from  Zurich,  March,  1525 — Ibid.,  350  et  seq.  From  this  ep.  we 
learn  that  the  Queen-mother's  kindly  disposition  towards  the  reformers 
had  changed  to  one  of  hostility,  because  some  person  had  persuaded  her 
that  the  inculcation  of  the  reformed  teaching  was  detrimental  to  the 
peace  of  the  Church  and  the  maintenance  of  settled  government. 


284        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

an  independent  road  towards  reform,  and  promulgating 
new  conceptions  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  doctrine;1 
some  were  arranging  to  lay  aside  practices  belonging 
to  the  ancient  order  of  things  which  they  had  hitherto 
observed.' 

After  the  disastrous  day  of  Pavia  which  entailed  the 
captivity  of  King  Francis,  the  moderate  reformers  of 
Meaux,  already  compromised  by  the  energies  of  their 
progressive  friends  elsewhere,  found  that  their  position 
had  become  intolerable,  for  the  Queen-regent  had  now 
turned  against  them,  and  the  Parliament  had  been 
embittered  by  the  representations  of  the  doctors  of  the 
Sorbonne.  Consequently,  Lefevre,  Roussel,  and  some 
others,  had  to  flee  to  Strasburg  in  order  to  escape  the 
vengeance  of  the  triumphant  Faculty  of  Theology,  and 
Briconnet  himself  was  forced  to  temporize.1  Michel 
d'Arande,  however,  remained  with  the  Court  at  Lyons, 
and,  for  a  time,  was  safe  there.* 

So  far,  Erasmus  had  not  been  seriously  disturbed 
by  the  Sorbonne,  but  the  attack  now  made  by  that  body 
upon  Louis  de  Berquin  was  certain  to  involve  him. 
This  gentleman  of  Picardy,  who  was  in  favour  at  the 
French  Court,  held  views  similar  to  those  of  Lefevre 
and  Erasmus.  He  had  been  first  thrown  into  prison 
in  August,  1523.  On  that  occasion,  several  "  heretical  " 
books,  which  had  been  found  among  his  possessions, 
were  condemned  and  burnt  in  front  of  Notre  Dame,  by 
order  of  the  Parliament  ;  he  himself  had  incurred  great 
risk  of  sharing  the  same  fate  as  his  books,  but  the  King 

1  Ep.  of  Francois  Lambert  to  the  Prince-bishop  of  Lausanne,  a  prelate 
who,  at  one  time,  had  been  favourable  towards  the  reform-movement, 
January,  1525  ;  ep.  of  Farcl  to  Pomeranus,  about  8th  October,  1525 — 
Ibid.,  328  et  seq.  and  393  et  seq. 

2Ep.  of  Toussain  to  Farel,  4th  September,  1525—  Ibid.,  27 S  et  $e1- 
For  instance,  Pellican's  friends  were  advising  him  to  discard  his  monkish 
cowl,  and  CEcolampadius  was  about  to  cease  celebrating  the  Holy 
Eucharist  with  all  the  ceremonies  of  the  Mass. 

8  Ep.  of  Jean  Tolninus  (i.e.,  Gerard  Rousiel)  to  Briconnet,  from  Stras- 
burg, December,  1525 — Ibid.,  405,  etseq.  They  left  Meaux  about  October. 

*  Ep.  of  Bentin  to  (Ecolampadiut,  8th  October,  1 525  —  Ibid.  399. 


PERSECUTION   OF  BERQUIN  285 

had  quashed  the  indictment.1  It  happened,  on  20th 
May,  1525,  that  three  works  of  Erasmus  which  had  been 
translated  into  French  were  brought  before  the  Sor- 
bonne,  in  its  quality  of  press-censor,  and  condemned. 
When,  in  the  following  March,  they  had  been  printed, 
in  spite  of  the  condemnation  by  the  Sorbonne,  that  body 
inserted  the  name  of  the  reputed  translator,  Berquin, 
in  their  denunciation.  Although  Berquin  was  suspected 
of  being  the  interpreter,  no  proof  of  the  fact  was 
available  at  this  time.  Beda  therefore  wrote  to  Eras- 
mus,* on  the  day  after  the  first  decision  against  the 
books,  accusing  him  of  having  been  the  originator  of 
vernacular  translations  of  the  Bible  and  theological 
works,  and  pointing  out,  as  the  consequences  of  his  ill- 
omened  advice,  the  events  that  had  occurred  in  the 
diocese  of  Meaux  on  account  of  Lefevre's  labours  in  that 
direction  among  the  uneducated  people.3  He  informed 
Erasmus  that  at  least  three  of  his  compositions  had 
been  turned  into  French,  viz.,  the  Praise  of  Marriage, 
The  Lord's  Prayer,  and  The  Creed,  and  that  some 
members  of  the  Faculty  believed  Berquin  to  be  the 
translator.  Accordingly,  he  warned  Erasmus  that  he 
ran  a  grave  danger  of  being  consigned  to  the  same 
doom  as  Lefevre  by  "  our  Masters  "  {i.e.,  the  Doctors 
of  the  Sorbonne).*  Cautious  as  Erasmus  ever  was  by 
inclination  as  well  as  policy,  his  retort  to  Beda  proved 
him  worthy  of  his  reputation  for  wit  and  scholarship  ■ : — 
Thy  kindliness  caused  thee  to   fear  that   I    might 

1  Journal  d' un  Bourgeois  dc  Paris,  pp.  169-70. 
"  Henn.,  I,  352-3. 

8  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  170SF  :  "  Suis  damnis  expertus  modo  Dominus 
Episcopus  Meldensis  quidnam  fructus  plebs  illitcrata  suae  Diocccsis  ex 
Jacobi  Fabri  sudoribu3  in  eo  negotio  collegerit."  Erasmus  (ep.  to 
Pirckheimer,  6th  June,  K26)  asserted  that  the  cause  of  Lefevre's  flight 
ha. I  been  his  translation  of  the  Gospels  into  French — Ibid.,  940E  ;  Herm., 
I,  421.  Graf,  p.  78,  maintains  that  the  immediate  cause  was  the  threat- 
ened investigation  into  his  Gospels  and  Epistles  of  the  fifty-two  Sundays. 

*  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1709c  :  "  Ne  futura  tibi  et  Fabro  sit  communis  sor9 
cum  Magistris  nosi  ris." 

*  Ibid.,  866d,  869A.    Erasmus's  reply  it  dated  15th  June,  1525. 


286        THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

come  to  the  same  fate  as  Lefevre.  I,  however,  fear 
still  more,  most  excellent  Bedda,  that  you  (Sorbon- 
nists)  will  come  to  the  same  fate  as  the  theologians  of 
Germany,  whose  authority,  in  these  times,  is  so  great 
that  if  they  find  fault  with  anything,  that  very  thing 
becomes  popular  just  because  they  condemned  it.  .  .  . 
So  far  as  Berquin  is  concerned,  I  have  had  no 
business  with  him  ;  yet,  if  thou  wilt  let  me  whisper  a 
little  word  of  truth  in  thine  ear,  what  was  the  reason  of 
including  in  the  list  of  articles  (against  him)  this, 
namely,  that  he  had  written  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
be  invoked  by  preachers  rather  than  the  Virgin  Mary? 
It  was,  sayest  thou,  an  offence  against  a  laudable 
custom.  Laudable  it  may  be  to-day,  but  the  ancients 
knew  nothing  of  this  laudable  custom.  .  .  .  How- 
ever, if  it  be  granted  that  it  is  laudable,  wherein  does 
he  err  who  draws  attention  to  what  is  more  laudable? 
But  what  a  thing  it  is,  to  put  the  life  and  reputation 
of  such  a  man  in  danger  for  the  sake  of  trifles  of  this 
kind! 

But  to  Berquin  Erasmus  wrote,  on  25th  August, 

1525  *:— 

I  believe  that  what  thou  art  doing  thou  doest  with 
the  best  intentions,  most  learned  Berquin,  but  thou 
art  burdening  me,  already  more  than  sufficiently 
weighted,  with  great  odium,  by  translating  my  little 
books  into  the  vulgar  tongue  and  making  them 
accessible  to  the  understanding  of  these  theologians, 
amongst  whom  I  am  aware  are  many  honourable  and 
upright  men  ;  the  ill-nature  of  the  few,  however,  too 
frequently  overcomes  the  moderation  of  the  many. 
.  .  .  And  perhaps  thou  thyself  wouldest  be  consulting, 
friend  Berquin,  thy  own  best  interests,  if  thou  dost 
not  rouse  again  that  quarrel  (of  thine)  now  that  it  has 
been  settled.  Our  Papilion  is  gone,  and  Deloin  before 
him.  .  .  ." 
The  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Parliament  and 

1  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  8840E. 

2  Erasmus  probably  meant  to  warn  Berquin  what  to  expect,  for  a 
rumour  was  then  abroad  that  Papilion  had  been  poisoned  by  the  enemies 
of  reform.    Cp.  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  169SB,  944c,  and  Herm.,  I,  472. 


PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  THE  MELDOIS  287 

the  Sorbonne  to  proceed  against  heresy  decided  (2nd 
August,  1525)  that  Lefevre's  version  of  the  New 
Testament  should  be  burnt.  In  the  same  month,  the 
process  of  the  friars  against  Briconnet  was  concluded 
in  favour  of  the  prelate;  he  was  honourably  discharged.1 
By  a  decree  of  3rd  October,  Parliament  determined 
that  the  judges  delegated  to  that  office  should  have  the 
cases  of  the  following  persons  brought  before  their 
tribunal :  Masters  Pierre  Caroli  and  Martial  Mazurier, 
doctors  of  theology  ;  Master  Gerard  (Roussel),  Trea- 
surer of  the  Church  of  Meaux,  and  Master  Jacques 
Fabri.  Besides  these,  Fr.  Jean  Prevost  and  Mangin  were 
to  be  examined.  Parliament  also  instructed  the  said 
court  to  apply  to  the  Queen-regent  to  send  to  Paris  for 
examination  Master  Michel  (d'Arande).8  On  6th 
November,  the  Sorbonne  passed  a  censure  on  Lefevre's 
Exhortations  on  the  Epistles  and  Gospels,  for  the  use  of 
Meaux,  and  Parliament,  on  5th  February  of  the 
following  year,  in  ratification  of  this  decision,  prohibi- 
ted its  use.8 

When  King  Francis  heard  of  the  high-handed  actions 
of  his  Parliament  he  despatched  to  it,  from  his  Spanish 
prison,  a  mandate  (12th  November)  ordering  the  sus- 
pension of  all  proceedings  against  Lefevre,  Caroli,  and 
Roussel,  until  such  time  as  he  himself  should  have 
returned  to  France.  But  Parliament  had  no  intention 
of  abandoning,  even  at  the  King's  command,  its 
execution  of  the  wishes  of  the  Sorbonne  ;  it  forwarded, 
on  15th  December,  to  the  Queen-mother  a  justification 
of  the  course  it  was  pursuing  and  forthwith  re-issued 
the  authority  to  the  inquisitorial  judges  to  continue 
their  process  against  "  Fabri,  Caroli,  and  Ruffi."4 

1  Bulaeus,  VI,  184.  Bulaeus  adds  :  "  Vita  &  Gesta  Guillelmi 
Briconnet,  tunc  Episcopi  Meldensis  eum  omnino  reddunt  a  calumnia 
istiusmodi  &  a  suspicione  haereseos  immuncm  :  quippe  nemo  acrius 
Luthcranam  haercsim  insectatvis  est,  nemo  ferventius  Catholicam 
tutatus."  *  Herm.,  I,  401,  n.  1. 

8  Ibid.,  402,  n.  2;  Graf,  p.  78,  note  225;  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  dt 
Paris,  p.  276.  4  Herm.,  I,  403,  n.  4. 


288        THE  END   OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

As  for  Berquin,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  those 
who  had  caused  his  incarceration  on  a  previous  occa- 
sion, and  had  been  disappointed  by  the  King  in  their 
procedure  against  him,  should  overlook  their  present 
opportunity  of  re-opening  the  process.  Early  in  1526, 
therefore,  he  was  seized  at  Abbeville,  brought  to  Paris, 
and  imprisoned.1  His  doom  appeared  certain  now.  The 
inquisitors  condemned  him,  and,  on  12th  March,  he  was 
handed  over  by  them  to  the  lay  power  for  the  extreme 
penalty  meted  out  to  heretics.*  By  this  time,  however, 
the  Queen-mother  had  acquired  an  increase  of  authority 
from  the  approaching  return  of  her  son  to  his  kingdom. 
Accordingly,  she  commanded  the  court  to  stay  its  action 
pending  the  arrival  of  the  King.'  Francis  himself,  on 
the  very  day  he  set  foot  in  France  (17th  March,  1526), 
wrote  to  the  Parliament  an  order  to  the  same  effect,  and 
repeated  it  a  few  days  afterwards.  For  this  act  of 
clemency  the  Princess  Margaret  thanked  her  brother,4 
and  in  a  letter  to  the  officer  who  subsequently  released 
Berquin  from  his  prison  she  declared  that  she  felt  the 
kindness  done  to  that  poor  man  as  if  it  had  been  done 
to  herself.* 

Immediately  on  regaining  his  freedom,  Berquin  sent 
an  epistle  to  Erasmus,8  which  is  of  some  importance,  as 
it  proves  the  slight,  not  to  say  contradictory,  grounds 
upon  which  his  judges  had  condemned  him  : — 

The  hornets  have  been  busy  again.  They  accused 
me  of  heresy  before  Parliament  and  the  papal  com- 
missioners, for  no  other  reason  than  that  I  had  trans- 
lated into  the  vernacular  some  of  thy  lucubrations,  in 
which  (they  have  dared  to  maintain)  are  to  be  found 
most  impious  heresies.   .   .   . 

It  would  be  too  long,   most  learned  Erasmus,  to 

1  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  pp.  277-8. 

1  Herm.,  I,  426,  n.  13. 

3  Herm.,  I,  424,  n. 

*  Ep.  of  April,  1526 — Ibid.,  421  et  seq. 

6  Ibid.,  422,  n.  2. 

9  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1712E-1714B,  dated  17th  April,  1526. 


RETURN  OF  THE  EXILES  289 

recount  what  answers  I  made.  ...  I  did  not  omit 
innumerable  protestations,  as  they  are  called.  But 
they,  treating  my  protestations  with  scorn,  treating 
the  Queen-mother's  edict  with  contempt  (though  I 
had  not  said  a  single  word  opposed  to  the  Catholic 
faith)  .  .  .  were  not  afraid  to  pronounce  me  a 
heretic  and  a  favourer  of  heretics.   .   .   . 

Here  thou  hast  the  whole  tragedy  of  Berquin.     One 

matter  especially  ought  to  be  mentioned  :   they  have 

not  drawn  any  article  from  thy  Paraphrase  dedicated 

to  the  King  (a  copy  of  which  translated  by  me  they 

took  from  me  among  other  books),   and  thou  canst 

guess  why. 

Not  only  was  Berquin  rescued  from  his  persecutors, 

but  the  exiles  at  Strasburg  received  a  summons  to 

return.     Lefevre,  therefore,  set  out  for  the  south  of 

France  (end  of  April,  1526)  by  way  of  Basle,  where  he 

had  some  friendly  intercourse  with  Erasmus;1   but  he 

took  up  residence  first  at  Angoul£me  and  afterwards  at 

Blois.*     We  find  Roussel  also  at  the  latter  place  in 

June.8    Michel  d'Arande,  who  had  fled  from  Lyons  in 

October,  1525,  and  had  joined  Lefevre  and  Roussel  at 

Strasburg,4  now  came  back  to  the  Court.8    On  17th 

June  he  entered  into  possession  of  the  bishopric  of 

St.  Paul-Trois-Chateaux   in   Dauphine  (to   which   he 

had  been  appointed  either  in  1525  or  early  in  1526)  and 

was  received  there  in  solemn  state.8 

All  the  members  of  the  Meldois  sodality  were  thus 
happily  reinstated  in  their  native  land  by  the  returned 
monarch.  But  the  flight  of  the  principal  agents  of  their 
enterprise  marked  a  period  in  the  realization  of  their 
hopes.  When  the  exiles  arrived  in  France,  they  were 
confronted  with  a  wholly  new  aspect  of  the  question  of 

1  Ep.  of  Erasmus  to  Jacques  Toussain  at  Paris,  16th  May,  1526 — 
Ibid.,  Q38D. 

2  Herm.,  I,  440,  n.14. 

3  He  wrote  from  Blois  to  Farel  on  17th  June —  Ibid.,  438  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  406,  n.  8,409,  n.  1. 

5  See  Agrippa's  ep.  to  him,  7th  May,  1 526 —  Ibid.,  427  et  seq. 

6  Cp.  the  quotation  from  Nova  Gallia  Christiana,  t.  I,  in  Herm.,  I, 
399,  "•  4- 


290         THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

reform.  This  they  either  did  not  at  once  perceive,  or, 
if  they  did,  they  believed  that  a  favourable  change 
might  soon  occur.  Everything,  undoubtedly,  depended 
on  the  course  that  King  Francis  would  take.  It  is  true 
that  he  afforded  protection  to  Lefevre,  Arande,  Roussel, 
and  the  rest.  Even  Pierre  Toussain,  a  more  militant 
reformer  than  those  mentioned,  was  relieved  of  all  fear 
of  danger  to  his  person  in  Paris.1  But  it  soon  became 
evident  that  the  King  was  disinclined  to  employ 
stringent  means  for  the  restraint  of  Beda,  Le  Couturier, 
and  the  rest  of  the  obscurantists.8  Apparently,  in  the 
earlier  years,  the  only  forces  which  had  disposed  him 
towards  authorizing  the  introduction  of  measures  cal- 
culated to  better  the  state  of  religion  in  his  kingdom 
had  been  the  affection  he  bore  for  his  sister  and  the 
influence  of  some  of  his  attendants.  Those  forces  were 
still  in  operation,  but  external  circumstances  had  now 
arisen  which  modified  considerably  their  power  over  the 
will  and  policy  of  the  monarch.  The  more  militant,  not 
to  say  revolutionary,  attitude  that  Lutheranism  had 
begun  to  assume  towards  ecclesiastical  offices  and  doc- 
trines, the  King's  own  loss  of  prestige  through  his 
reverses  and  captivity,  and  the  excesses  of  many  ill 
advised,  rash,  and  turbulent  exponents  of  reform,  pro- 
duced the  natural  result  of  causing  Francis  to  lend  a 
deaf  ear  to  all  suggestions  or  plans  which  had  even 
salutary  changes  for  their  objective. 

Count  Sigismund  von  Hohenlohe,  Dean  of  the 
Chapter  of  Strasburg,3  entered  into  correspondence  with 

1  It  was  quite  unnecessary,  therefore,  for  Erasmus,  in  his  letter  of  con- 
gratulation to  King  Francis  (16th  June,  1526 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  943-4; 
Bulaeus,  VI,  194-5),  to  urge  him  to  guard  Lefevre  and  the  others  from 
the  assaults  of  the  Sorbonne. 

2  The  ep.  referred  to  in  the  previous  note  contains  a  grave  indictment 
of  the  cruel  acrimony  of  the  "  Beddaici,"  as  Erasmus  termed  them  (in 
another  ep.  of  about  the  same  date — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  961A). 

8  Herm.,  I,  348,  n5,  refers  to  Roehrich's  Histoire  de  la  Reformation  en 
Alsace,  ire  partie,  for  a  full  account  of  this  ecclesiastical  nobleman's 
work  on  behalf  of  reform.  It  was  to  Count  von  Hohenlohe  that  the 
French  refugees  at  Strasburg  had  been  indc  lied  for  their  safety. 


THE  "  SUITABLE  OPPORTUNITY  "  LACKING  291 

the  Princess  Margaret  early  in  1526.  He  believed  France 
to  be  ripe  for  a  more  definite  advance  in  the  propaga- 
tion of  evangelicalism,  and  he  proposed  to  the  Princess 
to  pay  her  a  visit  for  the  purpose  of  furthering  the  cause. 
But,  in  April  and  May,  she  wrote  to  him  that  he  had 
better  wait  awhile.1  July  arrived  and  the  "  suitable 
opportunity  "  was  still  remote.2  There  is  no  evidence 
that  the  Count  ever  accomplished  his  journey  or 
attempted  to  carry  out  the  scheme  he  had  designed. 

Count  Sigismund's  efforts  and  the  consequences  that 
attended  them,  were  typical  of  others  of  a  similar  kind 
made  about  the  same  time.  For  example,  Toussain,  in 
a  letter  of  26th  July,  1526,  to  (Ecolampadius,  related 
that  he  had  had  some  conversation  with  Lefevre  and 
Roussel,  but  "  indeed  Lefevre  has  no  courage."3  Of 
Briconnet  he  reported  that  it  was  there  said  that  "  he 
was  latterly  not  dealing  frankly  with  the  Word,  being 
more  anxious  to  please  men  than  God."4 

But  Toussain 's  statements  were  simply  the  expres- 
sions of  opinion  upon  the  one  side.  We  hear  the  other 
view  of  the  situation  in  the  epistle  that  Roussel  sent  to 
Farel  on  27th  August5: — 

Our  circumstances  are  somewhat  easier  than 
hitherto,  and  we  have  some  hopes  that  the  rage  of  our 
opponents  may  be  restrained  and  a  certain  degree  of 
freedom  restored  to  us. 

These  expectations  can  hardly  have  attained  fulfil- 
ment, for  the  burnings  at  Paris  had  begun  anew.' 

1  Ibid.,  420  and  430. 

2  Ibid.,  441  :  "  Les  circonstances  me  paraisscnt  encore  telles,  que  votre 
venue  ici  ne  pourrait  vous  procurer  la  consolation  que  vous  desirez.  .  .  . 
Mais  des  que  je  croirai  le  temps  propice,  j'espere  en  Dieu  que  je  ne  vous 
ferai  pas  languir." 

3  Ibid.,  I,  447  ;  also  ibid.,  463  (ep.  of  Toussain  to  Farel.  9th  December) 
where  Toussain  repeats  the  same  opinion  of  Lefevre  but  has  great  hopes 
of  Roussel. 

*  Ibid.,  446. 

6  Ibid.,  449.  Note  Agrippa's  letter  of  18th  September  to  a  Court 
physician — Ibid. 

8  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  pp.  291-2.  Shortly  after  the  King 
had  returned  from  Spain,  Farel  had  advised  Arande  to  play  the  Christian. 


292         THE   END   OF  THE   MOVEMENT 

Nor  was  the  situation,  to  any  extent,  altered  for  the 
better  by  the  following  December,  when  Roussel  again 
wrote  to  Far  el.  Though  protected  by  the  Princess 
Margaret,  his  preaching  at  the  Court  brought  him  into 
imminent  danger  of  his  life.1  Nevertheless,  he  and  his 
friends  were  still  striving  to  interest  in  the  cause  all  such 
persons  as  they  had  the  opportunity  of  meeting.8 

Here  then  the  period  may  not  unfittingly  be  put  to 
the  work  of  the  Meldois  teachers  as  Catholic  reformers. 
Their  endeavours  to  improve  the  condition  of  that 
portion  of  Christendom  which  lay  around  them,  by 
pacific  means,  eventuated  in  complete  failure.  And 
yet,  they  had  had  no  idea  of  attempting  to  supersede 
any  authorized  or  defined  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  it 
then  stood  ;  they  had  conceived  no  intention  of  over- 
throwing any  department  of  settled  order  in  the  economy 
of  the  ecclesiastical  empire  ;  they  had  designed  to 
maintain,  in  its  highest  and  noblest  sense,  the  Catholi- 
city of  Christ's  Church.  From  time  to  time,  in  subse- 
quent years,  correspondents  might  remark  to  each  other 
the  gracious  disposition  of  the  King,  or  the  Cardinal  de 
Lorraine,  towards  the  Gospel.*  But  these  favourable 
inclinations  were  little  else  than  the  exigencies  of  diplo- 
macy or  the  vagaries  of  a  tortuous  policy.  One  thing 
seems  clear.  After  the  year  1526  had  passed,  there 
vanished  all  hope  of  a  truly  Catholic  reformation  upon 
French  soil.  Even  Roussel,  Lefevre,  and  their  helpers, 
perceived  it,  and,  having  no  wish  to  employ  the  methods 
or  the  teachings  of  their  Evangelical  friends,  realized 
that  their  enterprise  was  at  an  end. 

The  latter  replied  that  this  was  his  wish,  but  that  many  difficulties  had  to 
be  overcome — Herm.,  I,  469. 

1  Ibid.,  458  :  "  In  magno  virae  discrimine  versamur  ;  quotidie  audio 
inimicos  accrescere  mihi,  sed  mihi  adest  Dominus,  qui  me  consolatur, 
cui  sint  gratiae.  Tuas  et  fratrum  requiro  preces,  ut  Dominus  nos  capti- 
vitate  eximat  qua  premimur."  He  had  used  almost  the  same  words  on 
the  27th  August —  Ibid.,  450.  2  Ibid.,  459,  464. 

3  See  the  epp.  of  Capito  to  Zwingli,  1st  January,  1527 — Herm.,  II, 
3  et  seq.  ;  of  Martin  Bucer  to  Luther,  25th  August,  1530 — ibid.,  271  et 
seq. ;  of  Myconius  to  Bullinger,  28th  February,  1534 — ibid.,  Ill,  145  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PARTISANSHIP 

Even  whilst  King  Francis  was  affording  protection  to 
the  Meldois  company  the  Sorbonne,  led  on  by  Beda  and 
his  colleagues,  never  wavered  in  its  hostility  to  them 
as  well  as  to  the  aggressive  reformers  of  Switzerland. 
Its  enmity  towards  the  latter  is  neither  inexplicable  nor 
unnatural.  Those  who  assume  the  offensive,  as  Farel 
and  his  Swiss  friends  then  did,  usually  meet  with  a 
resistance  which,  when  successful,  occasionally  develops 
into  violence  and  oppression.  But  Erasmus,  when  he 
noted  the  bitter  hatred  of  the  obscurantists  of  the 
Sorbonne  and  the  "  pseudomonachi  "  towards  Lefevre, 
Briconnet,  Roussel,  Berquin,  and  himself,  could  not 
discover  any  reason  for  this  hatred,  save  that  of  fear 
lest  their  own  false  teaching  should  be  exposed.1 
Whatever  the  cause  of  their  inveterate  dislike,  the 
Sorbonnists  only  awaited  a  favourable  opportunity  to 
exhibit  the  full  strength  of  their  animosity.  It  was  in 
vain  that  Lefevre  dedicated  his  Latin  Commentaries  on 
the  Catholic  Epistles  (August,  1527)  to  Antoine  du  Prat, 
Chancellor  of  France,  and  recently  created  Cardinal, 
as  if  he  thought  this  powerful  courtier  would  be  likely 
to  support  an  effort  to  spread  biblical  knowledge.1 

1  Epp.  of  Erasmus  to  Lefevre,  24th  March,  1527,  to  John  a  Lasco,  17th 
May,  1527,  and  to  Vergara  (a  Spanish  theologian  of  eminence),  2nd  Sep- 
tember, 1527 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  972c,  979E-980A,  1014D. 

2  lac.  Fabri  Stapul  .  .  .  Comm.  in  epp.  Cath.  (edition  of  Cologne, 
1570),  Dedicatory  epistle  to  Du  Prat,  p.  6  :  "  Quos  catholicis  epistolis, 
cum  nouis  Commentarijs,  luce  aspirante  Christo,  protinus  donabo,  si 

293 


294  PARTISANSHIP 

In  vain  also  did  the  King  himself  (July,  1527)  call  upon 
the  University  to  restrain  Beda  from  further  attacks 
on  Lefevre  and  Erasmus.  That  celebrated  Dutch 
scholar,  too,  addressed  in  his  own  defence  the  Sorbonne 
(on  12th  November)  and  the  Parliament  (on  14th 
November).1 

In  spite  of  all  these  endeavours,  the  Colloquies  of 
Erasmus,  on  the  motion  of  the  Syndic  Beda,  were  con- 
demned (June,  1528)  by  the  University,  and  a  notice  of 
the  decree  was  despatched  to  the  author.2 

During  1528  several  circumstances  conspired  to 
provide  the  obscurantists  with  that  ascendency  for 
which  they  had  been  watching  and  waiting.  One  was 
the  favour  shown  to  them  by  the  Queen-mother  and  the 
Chancellor  Du  Prat.  Another  was  that,  in  the  early 
part  of  this  year,  the  provincial  councils  of  Sens, 
Bourges,  and  Lyons  issued  decrees  for  the  punishment 
of  the  heretics.  Following  upon  this  accession  of  power 
came  an  opportune  occasion  for  its  exercise.  On  the 
morning  of  1st  June,  it  was  discovered  that,  during  the 
night,  an  act  of  fanatical  iconoclasm  had  taken  place  : 
an  image  of  the  B.V.M.  and  Holy  Infant  had  been 
mutilated  in  one  of  the  streets  of  Paris.  Thereupon,  the 
indifference  of  the  Parisians  generally  and  the  King 
changed  into  anger  and  a  desire  to  avenge  the  insult.8 
A  number  of  burnings  followed,  and  for  the  time  being 
Beda  and  his  companions  were  all-powerful.4    Indeed, 

publica  luce  tuae  autoritati  digni  videbuntur."  This  dedication  was 
written  early  in  1525  ;  but  it  was  significant  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
time  that  the  Commentaries  had  to  be  published  outside  France— at 
Basle  by  Cratander.    See  Herm.,  II,  33  et  seq.  ;  Graf,  p.  86. 

1  Bulaeus,  VI,  200-10  ;   Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1031-40. 

2  Bulaeus,  VI,  210-11. 

3  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  pp.  347-51  ;  GuifTrey  (Georges) 
Cronique  du  Roy  Francoys  premier  de  ce  Nom,  publiee  pour  la  premiere 
fois,  avec  une  introduction  et  des  notes,  Paris,  i860,  p.  67  and  App.,  pp. 
446-64;  ep.  of  Erasmus  to  Count  Neuenar,  August,  1528 — Eras.  Op., 
Ill,  1136E-F;  en.  of  the  University  of  Paris  to  the  Parliament,  12th 
June,  152S — Bulaeus,  VI,  210  (bis). 

4  Journal,  etc.,  p.  375. 


BERQUIN   ATTACKED  295 

so  great  was  the  terror  caused  by  the  efforts  of  the 
Sorbonnists,  not  only  against  the  perpetrators  of  sacri- 
legious outrages,  but  against  all  who  desired  to  employ 
the  slightest  freedom  in  religious  thought  or  literary 
studies,  that  Erasmus  experienced  a  high  degree  of 
alarm.1  To  Berquin  he  forwarded  two  letters  (middle 
September,  and  23rd  December,  1528),  warning  him  of 
the  dangers  he  was  incurring,  the  power  of  the  forces 
arrayed  against  him,  the  endeavours  of  Beda  to  dis- 
credit both  Lefevre  and  himself  (Erasmus),  and  the 
extreme  inopportuneness  of  translating  into  French,  at 
such  a  time,  the  works  which  had  been  composed  only 
for  the  learned.2  And,  in  truth,  the  fears  of  Erasmus 
were  not  without  solid  foundation.  The  sole  protector 
of  those  whom  the  Sorbonne  attacked,  and  in  her 
estimation  most  unjustly,  was  Margaret,  the  King's 
sister.  After  the  recall  of  Lefevre  from  Strasburg 
Francis  had  shown  him  some  kindness  by  appointing 
him  tutor  to  the  royal  children.  This,  by  keeping  the 
old  man  attached  to  the  Court,  had  hitherto  shielded 
him  from  all  open  hostilities.  Berquin  the  King  appears 
to  have  esteemed  very  profoundly,  for  some  reason  at 
present  unknown.3  Nevertheless,  either  in  consequence 
of  hearkening  to  his  advisers  or  through  the  pressure 
of  his  political  schemes,  the  French  monarch,  about 
this  period,  exhibited  an  inclination  to  permit  the 
Sorbonne  to  wreak  its  vengeance  on  those  who  had 
aroused  its  animosity.  That  he  could  have  intervened 
to  save  Berquin,  and  did  not,  is  at  least  possible.  The 
process  against  the  Picardois  gentleman  is  indeed  one 
which  illustrates  the  extremity  of  religious  bitterness 
and  reveals  the  inhuman  eagerness  of  his  judges  to 

1  Ep.  to  Pierre  Toussain,  3rd  September,  1528 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
1  io6c-d.  Margaret,  who  had  married  Henri  d'Albret,  King  of  Navarre, 
on  30th  January,  1527,  retained  Roussel  and  Toussain  as  almoners — 
Herm.,  11,4,  n-  zi  '55;  n-  M- 

2  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1134B-D,  1132E-1133A  ;  Herm.,  II,  156,  159. 

3  Queen  Margaret  reminded  her  brother  of  it  when  she  was  interceding 
for  Berquin  in  1529 — Herm.,  II.  169,  r..  ~. 


296  PARTISANSHIP 

destroy  him.  Several  contemporary  documents  narrate 
the  story  of  his  trial  and  suffering;1  of  these  two  give 
full  particulars,  the  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris* 
and  Erasmus's  letter  of  1st  July,  1529,  to  Charles 
Utenhovius.*   The  latter  begins  thus  : — 

Louis  de  Berquin,  in  his  last  letter  to  me,  promised 
to  write  to  thee.  Thou  wilt  in  vain  expect  that 
epistle,  for  on  the  10th  of  the  Calends  of  May  he 
exchanged  life  for  death,  having  been  burnt  at  Paris 
in  the  Place  de  Greve.  On  what  grounds  I  know  not 
yet  for  certain.  I  have  merely  heard  that  the  business 
of  passing  sentence  was  entrusted  to  twelve  judges. 
When  the  time  drew  near,  he  was  cast  into  prison — 
not  a  lucky  augury.  It  was  determined  that  his  books 
should  be  burnt,  that  he  should  be  made  to  abjure  his 
opinions,  have  his  tongue  pierced,  and  should  then  be 
imprisoned  for  life.  On  this  unexpectedly  severe 
sentence  being  reported  to  him,  he  appealed  to  the 
King  and  the  Pope.  The  judges,  not  liking  the  men- 
tion of  an  appeal,  said,  "  If  thou  dost  not  accept  this 
sentence,  we  will  make  it  impossible  for  thee  to 
advance  any  appeal,"  and  the  next  day  they  decided  to 
deliver  him  to  the  flames. 

Erasmus  added  that,  according  to  the  account  which 
had  reached  him,  the  first  head  of  accusation  was  that 
Berquin  had  advocated  the  translation  of  the  Scriptures 
into  the  vernacular.  Contemporary  records  state  that 
the  Picardois  suffered4 

for  the  offence  he  had  committed  by  being  of 
Luther's  sect  and  making  ill  books  against  the 
majesty  of  God  and  His  Glorious  Mothtr. 

When  Jean  de  Selve,  the  First  President  of  Parlia- 

1  Amongst  others,  the  Cronique  du  Roy  Franfoys,  p.  76,  and  the  an- 
cient MS.  quoted  in  n.i. 
1  pp.  378-84. 

3  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1206D,  e  et  seq.  ;  also  Bulaeus,  VI,  217-26.  Ac- 
cording to  Eugene  de  Bud6,  Vie  de  GuiUaume  Bude,  fondateur  du 
College  de  France,  Paris,  1884,  pp.  242-8,  Bude"  was  one  of  Berquin's 
judges  on  this  occasion  and  did  his  best  to  save  the  Picardois  from  his  foes. 

4  Journal,  etc.,  p.  382. 


THE  BURNING  OF  BERQUIN  297 

mem,  announced  the  sentence  of  the  judges  to  Berquin 
on  Friday  evening,  16th  April,  he  renewed  his  appeal 
and  signed  the  writ.  On  the  next  morning,  Saturday, 
Selve  again  tried  to  obtain  Berquin's  acceptance  of  the 
sentence,  but  in  vain.  Thereupon,  the  court  assembled 
and  decided  that  he  should  die.  Accordingly,  between 
9  and  10  o'clock  that  day,  the  Picardois  was  condemned 
to  be  burnt  alive  and  to  have  his  books  burnt  first  in  his 
presence.  On  the  same  day,  the  execution  took  place. 
This  scandalous  haste  proceeded  from  the  anxiety  of  his 
foes  to  prevent  the  possible  intervention  either  of  the 
King  or  the  Queen-mother;1  for,  on  at  least  two 
previous  occasions,  the  royal  favour  had  rescued  Berquin 
from  them. 

How  far  it  is  true  that  any  opinion  advanced  by 
Louis  de  Berquin  savoured  of  Lutheranism  is  not  easy 
to  discover.  We  may  note,  indeed,  that  the  term 
"  Lutheran  "  was  one  applied  indiscriminately,  at  that 
time,  to  all  who  tried  to  promote  reform,  irrespective 
of  the  particular  views  held  by  them.2  But,  undoubt- 
edly, Berquin  himself  had  no  desire  to  be  reckoned  a 
Lutheran.  Moreover,  Erasmus,  in  delineating  his 
character,  enumerated  some  traits  which  by  no  means 
indicated  a  tendency  towards  the  Lutheran  ideas  that 
were  then  prevalent  (i.e.,  in  1528-9),  and  immediately 
added  :  "As  for  Lutheranism,  he  had  the  greatest 
abhorrence  of  it."1 

1  Ibid.,  p.  383  :  "  Ce  qui  fut  faict,  et  expedie  ce  mesme  jour  en  grande 
diligence,  affin  qu'il  ne  fut  recouru  du  Roy  ne  de  madame  la  Regente, 
qui  estoit  lors  a  Bloys." 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  250,  284,  327,  etc.  Cp.  p.  277  :  "  Et  faut  noter  que  la  plus 
grande  partie  de  Meaulx  estoit  infectce  de  la  faulce  doctrine  de  Luther, 
et  disoit-on,  qu'un  nomme  Fairy,  prestre,  estudiant  avec  autres,  estoit 
cause  des  dictz  embrouillemens." 

8  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1207E.  Crespin  also,  in  his  narrative  (cited  by  Ilerm., 
II,  187,  n.  22),  bears  the  same  testimony.  Cp.  the  ep.  of  Erasmus  to  the 
Bishop  of  Augsburg,  nth  August,  1530  :  "Ante  complures  menses 
exusserunt  quendam  Lodovicum  Berquinum,  virum  optimum  ut  prae- 
dicant,  nee  erat  Lutheranus.  Odium  theologorum  ac  monachorum, 
libera  lingua,  simplicitas  &  hujus  comes  fiducia  perdidit  hominem  " — 
Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1302K. 


298  PARTISANSHIP 

Lefevre  had  already  (that  is  to  say,  in  1528)  been  able 
to  complete  his  translation  of  the  Bible  into  French. 
But  even  the  favour  of  the  King  could  not  procure  him 
a  printer  or  publisher  for  it  in  France,  because  the 
Parliament  of  Paris  had  passed  a  decree  (5th  February, 
1526)  that  no  printer  should,  under  severe  penalties, 
print  any  Lutheran  book,  and  that  no  one  "  should 
presume  to  translate  from  Latin  into  French  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  Apocalypse,  or  any  other  books 
of  the  Bible."  His  version,  therefore,  of  the  Old 
Testament  appeared  at  Antwerp  in  the  above-mentioned 
year.1  But  the  Sorbonnists,  flushed  with  their  triumph 
over  Berquin,  soon  tried  to  attack  even  those  in  sanc- 
tuary at  Court,2  whilst  the  bishops  and  theologians  were 
endeavouring  to  suppress  every  kind  of  reform.3  At 
this  period  Roussel  was  executing  the  office  of  an  al- 
moner to  Queen  Margaret,  and  Lefevre  had  charge  of 
the  royal  library  in  the  Chateau  de  Blois.  It  is,  indeed, 
possible  that  King  Francis  found  that  the  exigencies  of 
his  political  designs  deprived  him  of  the  liberty  of 
protecting  such  persons  as  were  suspected,  whether 
rightly  or  wrongly,  of  heresy,  or  obnoxious  on  other 
grounds  to  the  powerful  Faculty  of  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Paris.  Though  we  may  harbour  some 
doubts  respecting  any  violent  threats  having  been 
uttered  by  the  King  to  Lefevre  or  Roussel,  there  does, 
in  fact,  appear  to  have  been  some  disturbance,  at  this 
time,  of  the  former's  tranquillity  in  his  retreat  among 
the  King's  books,  for  he  applied  to  Queen  Margaret  to 
secure  the  monarch's  permission  for  him  to  withdraw 

1  Journal,  etc.,  p.  276  ;   Herm.,  II,  180,  n.  19. 

2  According  to  the  report  which  CEcolampadius  sent  to  Zwingli  (ep. 
of  4th  May,  1530)  King  Francis  was  actually  threatening  Roussel  and 
Lefevre  for  the  influence  they  had  exerted  over  the  Queen  of  Navarre  : 
"  Minatur  ignem  doctissimis  Gerardo  Rufo  et  Jacobo  Fabri,  et  aliis, 
nisi  dissuaserint  sorori  quod  persuaserunt  " — Herm.,  II,  249. 

3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  censuring  not  only  reform  but  even  the 
assertion  that  a  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  was  necessary  for  the 

:  feet  understanding  of  Holy  Scripture —  Ibid.,  484. 


RETIREMENT  OF   LEF&VRE  299 

into  still  greater  obscurity.  Accordingly,  'the  Queen 
wrote  to  the  Grand-master,  Anne  de  Montmorency, 
towards  the  end  of  May,  1530 x : — 

The  good  man  Fabry  has  written  to  me  that  he  has 
had  some  little  trouble  at  Blois.1*  He  would  willingly 
go  for  a  change  of  air  to  visit  one  of  his  friends  for  a 
time,  if  it  were  the  King's  pleasure  to  give  him  his 
congi.  He  has  put  the  library  in  order,  numbered  the 
books,  and  made  an  inventory  of  them  which  he  will 
deliver  to  whomsoever  the  King  wishes.  I  beg  of  you 
to  ask  the  King  for  his  cong6,  and  let  me  know  how 
he  is  and  good  news  of  yourself,  and  thereby  you  will 
give  peculiar  pleasure  to  her  who  is 

Your  good  aunt  and  friend,  Margaret. 

King  Francis  gave  the  permission  required,  and 
Lefevre  retired  to  Queen  Margaret's  Court  at  Nerac. 

To  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  life-work  of  the  aged 
fitaplois  had  already  ended.  He  was  a  very  old  man, 
and  long  since  had  ceased  to  possess  the  capacities  foi 
guiding  or  controlling  a  movement  of  any  kind.  To 
preserve  the  balance,  to  maintain  the  Catholic  equili- 
brium, between  the  fierce  partisans  of  aggressive  reform, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  militant  obscurantism  and  en- 
croaching curialism,  on  the  other,  would  have  required 
very  eminent  powers  of  mind  and  body,  and  an  inex- 
haustible patience.  It  is  doubtful  if  Lefevre,  at  any 
time  in  his  life,  had  been  endowed  with  these  qualities. 
Patient  to  a  very  great  extent  he  certainly  was,  and 
gentle,  and  unswervingly  loyal  to  his  principles,  but 
these,  in  all  likelihood,  formed  the  sum  of  his  moral 
vigour.  And  when  he  grew  old,  his  gentleness  increased 
until  it  became  almost  timorous  caution.  The  contro- 
versy over  the  comparatively  trivial  question  of  the 
Three  Maries  revealed  at  once  the  compact  strength  of 
his  foes  and  his  own  weakness  in  meeting  opposition. 

1  Herm.,  II,  250-1. 

2  "  Le  bon  homme  Fabry  m'a  escript  qu'il  s'est  trouve  ung  peu  mal  a 
Bloys,  avecques  ce  qu'on  Pa  voulu  fascher  par  dela." 


joo  PARTISANSHIP 

Consequently,  when,  in  1530,  King  Francis  permitted 
him  to  retire,  his  withdrawal  from  Blois  proved,  in 
truth,  what  it  was  intended  to  be,1  the  final  exit  from 
the  stage  of  human  effort  of  the  old  £taplois  who,  in 
his  own  exalted  sense  of  the  expression,  was  a  true 
Catholic. 

For  six  years  longer  he  lived  in  the  peaceful  home 
which  Queen  Margaret  had  provided  for  him.  He  saw, 
from  time  to  time,  how  reformers,  not  always  orthodox, 
not  always  Catholic,  came  for  succour  in  their  distress' 
to  the  gracious  lady  who  had  once  hoped  to  be  the 
centre,  "  the  mother,"  as  she  had  called  herself,*  of  a 
noble  band  of  Catholic  reformers,  but  who  had  drawn 
back  when  she  discovered  that  she  had  to  choose 
between  a  reformation  and  a  schism  in  the  Gallican 
Church. 

A  few  notices  of  him  in  his  retirement  exist.  One 
belongs  to  the  close  of  the  following  year.  On  30th 
December,  1531,  Aleander,  Luther's  old  enemy  and 
Erasmus's  doubtful  friend,  wrote  to  Sanga,'  the  Secre- 
tary of  Pope  Clement  VI I,  that  he  had  heard  of  Lefevre's 
honourable  confinement,  under  strong  guard,  in  Gas- 
cony  (Nerac  lay  near  the  borders  of  Gascon}')  ;  that  a 
nobleman,  having  made  inquiry  of  Lefevre  regarding 
his  opinions  of  the  Lutherans  and  Catholics,  and 
having  received  the  answer  that  everything  depended  on 
which  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  exclaimed  that 
surely  he  (Lefevre)  believed  that  Catholics  were 
directed  by  God's  Spirit,  whereupon  Lefevre,  shrugging 
his  shoulders,  said,  "  I  am  sure  I  do  not  know." 

1  Erasmus,  in  his  acute  and  witty  way,  gives  an  exceedingly  neat  in- 
terpretation to  the  conge  granted  to  Lefevre  :  "  Lefevre  d'Etaples  has 
been,  like  another  Enoch,  taken  up  by  the  French  King,  who  has  for- 
bidden anyone  to  write  either  in  his  favour  or  against  him  " — Ep.  to  the 
Bp.  of  Augsburg,  nth  August,  1530,  Eras.  Op.,  III,  1302F. 

2  E.g.,  the  case  of  Claude  Baduel — Herm.,  Ill,  190,  n.  2,  and  that  of 
Gauchier  Farel,  brother  of  Guillaume — Ibid.,  169  etscq.,  324,  n.i. 

3  Herm.,  I,  III,  n.  10. 

*This  letter  is  numbered  363  in  Herm.,  II,  386-8. 


JUSTIFICATION  OF  LEF&VRE  301 

I  cannot  make  up  my  mind  what  to  think  of  this 
conversation.  Lefevre  may  possibly  have  expressed 
himself  wittingly.  I  have  learnt,  however,  for 
certain  from  a  common  friend  of  ours  who  dwells  at 
Tournai,1  that,  when  Lefevre  was  dismissed  from  the 
Court,  he  went,  or  was  despatched,  to  a  fortified  town 
called  St.  Paul,  which  belongs  to  the  King's  sister, 
and  where,  through  this  princess's  favour,  the  bishop 
is  one  Jean  Gerard  by  name.   ..." 

In  the  main  his  errors  are  of  no  great  moment, 
although  at  their  first  publication  their  novelty  gave 
them  an  appearance  of  importance  :  at  that  time  it 
was  an  unheard  of  thing  that  one  should  alter  the 
smallest  syllable  or  even  amend  a  text  corrupted  by 
coypists  in  the  ancient  versions  used  by  the  Church. 
Nowadays  quite  another  business  occupies  us  than 
that  of  translation,  and  a  new  version,  into  which  no 
false  doctrine  is  introduced,  is  not  now  accounted  any 
great  affair.  ...  If  only  Lefevre  were  to  make  a  little 
recantation  of  some  passages,  even  as  St.  Augustine 
did,  everything  could  easily  be  put  right.  .  .  .  But 
Lefevre  is  so  far  from  us  that  it  would  suit  best  to 
prevail  on  him,  through  the  intervention  of  some 
worthy  prince  or  nobleman,  to  betake  himself  to  Italy, 
because  as  long  as  he  is  beside  this  Gerard,  nothing 
will  succeed.   .  .   . 

And  so  it  was  made  evident,  by  this  ardent  curialist 
and  papal  envoy,  that  all  along  the  censures  passed 
upon  the  old  fitaplois  rested  on  no  solid  grounds.* 
Even  this  extreme  partisan  could  discover,  in  the 
biblical  labours  of  Lefevre,  only  a  few  objectionable 
passages  and  these  merely  such  as  required  a  trivial 
retractation.    We  think  it  difficult  to  find  anywhere  a 

1  Herminjard,  IT,  386,  n.  3,  suggests  that  Clichtoue  is  meant. 

*  Aleander  made  several  errors  here.  Probablv  enough,  in  view  of 
Queen  Margaret's  statement,  Lefevre,  on  his  way  to  her,  visited  Michel 
d'Arande,  Bishop  of  St.  Paul-Trois-Chateaux,  in  Dauphiny.  That  town, 
however,  did  not  belone  to  Queen  Margaret.  "  Jean  GeVard  "  is  obviously 
a  mistake  for  Gerard  Roussel. 

8  When  Lefevre's  version  of  the  Old  Testament  appeared  at  Antwerp 
in  1528,  it  contained  a  commendatory  notice  from  a  theologian  of 
Louvain,  whose  orthodoxy  was  unimpeachable — Ibid.,  II,  388,  note  10. 


302  PARTISANSHIP 

more  complete  justification  of  the  old  man's  right  to  be 
reckoned  a  Catholic  than  this  epistle  of  Jerome  Aleander. 

Another  notice  of  him  is  that  supplied  by  one  who 
averred  that  he  had  obtained  it  from  the  Queen  of 
Navarre  herself.1  One  day  at  dinner  Lefevre  appeared 
so  sad  that  Margaret  asked  him  the  cause  of  his  de- 
pression. Thereupon,  he  explained  that  he  felt  his  own 
inability  to  stand  before  God  on  account  of  his  failure 
to  bear  witness  to  the  Gospel  even  to  the  death,  as  so 
many  faithful  ones  were  doing.  The  Queen  exhorted 
him  not  to  lose  hope  in  God's  mercy  and  goodness. 
Lefevre  then  said,  "  There  only  remains  to  me,  after  I 
make  my  will,  to  go  away  to  God,  for  I  feel  He  is  calling 
me." 

The  unhappy  state  of  mind,  with  which  Lefevre 's 
final  days  were  clouded,  continued  to  the  end  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1536,  if  we  are  to  trust  an  autographic  record 
made  by  Guillaume  Farel.  According  to  this,  Lefevre, 
on  his  death-bed,  was2 

for  several  days  so  terrified  at  the  judgment  of  God 
that  he  cried  out  that  he  would  perish  eternally  for  not 
having  openly  confessed  the  truth  of  God.  ...  It 
was  dreadful  that  so  pious  an  old  man  should  have 
been  in  such  anguish  of  mind  and  in  such  terror  of 
God's  judgment.  Perhaps  if  he  had  been  free,  he 
would  have  had  better  hopes  and  worked  for  Christ. 
Hereupon  warned,  Michel  d'Arande,  bishop  of  St. 
Paul,  replies  to  the  letter  sent  him  thus  : 

To  the  stout  soldier  Gaius,  engaged  in  the  business 
of  his  King,  salvation,  grace,  and  peace. 

I  hardly  think  that  the  passing  of  that  godly  old 
man  Stapulensis  disturbed  thy  mind  as  much  as  thy 
pious  and  Christian  letter  has  terrified  me  .  .  . 
particularly  because  it  portrays  and  sets  before  me 

1  From  the  Annals  of  Hubert  Thomas — see  ibid.,  Ill,  400,  notes  6,  7. 

2  This  note  of  Farel's,  quoted  by  Herminjard  (III,  400,  n.  6,  7),  i9  in- 
scribed on  the  back  of  the  epistle  forwarded  to  him  by  Michel  d'Arande, 
and  alludes  to  that  letter.  Herminjard  numbers  this  letter  544  and 
inserts  it  in  t.  ITT,  399-401.  Its  date  appears  to  be  about  the  month 
of  March,  1536. 


LATER   HISTORY   OF  TOUSSAIN        303 

Christ  Jesus,  so  counselling  and  justly  chiding  me 
that  no  course  is  left  me  but  to  surrender  myself  to 
Him  as  a  guilty  offender.  Wherefore,  not  to  trouble 
thee  too  much,  I  beg  and  entreat  thee  by  the  same  our 
Lord  Jesus  that  ye  will  assist  me  with  your  continual 
prayers,  and  meanwhile  that  ye  will  not  cease  to  seek 
means  whereby  I  may  be  delivered  from  this  depth  of 
mire,  in  which  is  no  substance.  The  letter-carrier  will 
relate  other  things  to  thee  and  thine,  and  will  salute 
you  all  in  His  Name  without  Whom  no  salvation  can 
be  hoped  for.  Thy  Regius  commends  thee  heartily  to 
Christ  and  His  Word. 

Thy  brother  Cor  :   Tardivus.1 
To  my  friend  and  brother  Gaius  Falconus. 

The  tardiness,  of  which  the  good  bishop  here  accuses 
himself,  was,  in  actual  fact,  a  characteristic  of  many  of 
the  Meldois  reformers.    It  is  explainable. 

When  the  French  exiles  returned  to  France  from 
Strasburg,  Roussel  and  Toussain,  as  we  have  seen,  were 
attached  to  Queen  Margaret's  Court  as  almoners.  Of 
the  latter,  mention  is  made  in  a  letter  of  Martin  Bucer 
(May,  1528)  to  Farel  that  he  was  living  in  Paris.  But 
the  same  epistle2  evinces  the  dissatisfaction  of  the 
militant  reformers  at  the  entire  policy  of  the  moderates 
of  Meaux.  Not  only  Bucer,  but  (Ecolampadius  (nth 
May,  1528)  declared  the  impossibility  of  inducing 
Toussain  to  quit  France  and  adopt  a  more  aggressive 
programme.3  A  year  later,  Farel  informed  Capito  of  a 
report  he  had  heard  that  Toussain  had  been  urgently 
invited  to  come  back  to  Metz,4  and  he  expressed  the 

1  Michel  d'Arande  had  long  previously  adopted  the  pseudonym  Cor- 
nelius by  which  he  was  well  known  to  the  whole  Meldois  company.  He 
now  added  tardivus  as  an  admission  of  his  own  slowness  in  the  work  of 
the  Gospel.  As  Farel's  name  was  widely  known  (and  hated)  in  France, 
Arande  inscribed  this  ep.  to  him  under  the  scriptural  pseudonym  Gaius. 

2  Herm.,  II,  131  et  seq. 

8  "  Mihi  doluit,  Farelle  charissime,  quod  Petrum  nostrum  ex  Galliis 
evocare  non  potuimus  "  —Ibid.,  133. 

*  Toussain  had  spent  a  large  part  of  his  childhood  at  Metz,  and  had 
already  (in  1525)  worked  there  as  a  preacher — Herm.,  T,  ??8,  n.  5,  IT  484. 


304  PARTISANSHIP 

hope  that  Toussain's  preaching  there  would  be  atten- 
ded with  success, 

for,  as  for  France,  I  do  not  see  what  can  be  done  at 
all  under  such  a  worthless  ruler  (insano  capite)  as  one 
who  forbids  the  people  to  have  the  New  Testament,  so 
that  there  remains  no  means  to  them  of  learning  the 
truth.1 

Toussain  only  quitted  France  in  1531,  when,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  position  of  every  member  of  the 
Meldois  company  had  become  precarious  in  the  extreme. 
He  took  refuge  at  Zurich,1  but  for  some  time  he  showed 
a  reluctance  to  take  part  in  the  work  of  reformation  as 
Farel  and  his  friends  were  conducting  it.3  Eventually 
he  joined  them,  but  was  never  quite  in  harmony  with 
them.* 

Gerard  Roussel  was  the  other  almoner  of  the  Queen 
of  Navarre.  With  her  he  came  to  Paris  at  the  beginning 
of  1533,  and  preached  there,  during  Lent  of  that  year, 
before  laige  congregations.  In  spite  of  all  the  precau- 
tions he  took,  he  attracted  the  ever  vigilant  hostility 
of  the  Sorbonnists.  In  her  defence  of  the  preacher, 
Margaret  displayed  some  spirit,  and  intimated  to  her 
brother  the  King  that  Roussel  was  no  heretic  and 
deserved  something  better  than  to  be  burnt.5  Beda 
and  his  associates,  therefore,  met  with  a  different  recep- 
from  that  which  they  had  expected,  when  they  carried 
their  complaints  before  the  King,  for  he  ordered  them 
to  fix  their  abode  at  not  less  than  thirty  leagues  from  the 

1  Ibid.,  179. 

2  Ep.  of  Farel  toZwingli,  July  or  August,  1531 — Ibid.,  356. 

3  Ibid.,  365.    See  his  ep.  to  Farel,  written  in  1533 — Herm.,  Ill,  3-11. 

4  See  his  epp.  to  Farel,  1st  May,  1535,  and  to  Blaarer,  13th  Mav,  1535 — 
Ibid.,  285-6,  291-2.  For  some  later  notices  of  Toussain,  consult  Dr.  Jean 
Barnaud,  Pierre  Viret,  sa  vie  et  son  <B:<vre  (1511-1571),  Saint-Amans, 
191 1,  pp.  250  et  seq.,  294  et  seq. 

5  See  her  letter  to  Montmorency,  Mav,  1533  :  "  Le  Roy  trouvera  qu'il 
est  digne  de  mieulx  que  du  feu,  et  qu'il  n'a  jamais  tenu  opinion  pour  le 
marker,  ny  quy  sente  nulle  chose  herdtique  " — Herm..  Ill,  53.  Observe 
also  Siderander's  ep.  to  Bedrot —  Ibid.)  54  et  seq. 


ROUSSEL  305 

capital.1  The  cause  of  this  command  of  the  monarch 
was  as  follows.'  Roussel  had  been  preaching  in  the 
Louvre  and  the  theologians  did  not  like  this.  They 
approached  the  King  on  the  matter,  but  he,  in  contempt, 
referred  them  to  the  Chancellor,  the  Cardinal-legate 
Antoine  du  Prat,  who  passed  them  on  to  the  Bishop  of 
Paris,  Jean  du  Bellay.  This  prelate,  however,  gave  no 
heed  to  them.  Thereupon,  they  applied  to  the  First 
President  (of  the  Parliament),  but  he,  though  by  no 
means  hostile  to  their  cause,  complied  rather  with  the 
manners  of  his  superiors  than  his  own  inclinations. 
Beda  and  his  friends,  as  a  last  resource,  adopted  the 
dangerous  plan  of  inciting  the  populace  against  the 
Queen  of  Navarre  and  her  preacher.  The  King, 
accordingly,  ordered  an  examination  to  be  conducted 
into  the  alleged  heresy  of  Roussel  and  the  seditious 
behaviour  of  Beda.  No  incriminating  evidence  was 
forthcoming  for  the  former,  and,  as  for  the  latter,  the 
King,  being  further  exasperated,  held  an  investigation 
into  the  authorship  of  the  seditious  proceedings  which 
had  taken  place.  The  reply  given  to  his  inquiries  was 
that  they  originated  with  the  doctors  of  the  Faculty 
of  Theology  (ex  consensu  ct  placito  Magistrorum  Nos- 
trorum).  When  the  matter  was  brought  before  these, 
they  denied  the  statement.  Therefore,  the  entire 
responsibility  fell  upon  Beda  and  three  of  his  associates, 
who,  consequently,  incurred  the  royal  sentence  of 
banishment.  Roussel,  on  the  contrary,  rose  immeasur- 
ably in  the  general  estimation,  and  there  seemed  to  be 
setting  in  a  marvellous  change  in  public  opinion  at 
both  Paris  and  Lyons  regarding  those  objects  which 
Roussel  had  so  much  at  heart.* 

1  Ibid.,  53,  n.  4,  56,  n.  20. 

2  Ep.  of  Sturm  to  Bucer,  23rd  August,  1533 — Ibid.,  72  et  seq. 

•  Hcrm.,  Ill,  75,  notes  20  and  21,  quotes  a  letter  of  Berthold  Haller 
to  Bullinger,  25th  August,  1533,  in  which  it  is  related  that  Cardinal 
Cajetan,  in  a  book  that  appeared  about  this  time,  expressed  opinions  not 
greatly  different  from  those  of  the  Evangelicals,  and  that  when  the  Sor- 
bonnists  attempted  to  condemn  the  work  they  were  forbidden  by  the 


3o6  PARTISANSHIP 

Although  they  had  abandoned  their  leader  Bcda, 
the  theologians  fostered  in  their  hearts  a  bitter  hatred 
towards  Queen  Margaret  and  her  protege  Rousscl. 
On  ist  October  of  the  same  year,  a  comedy  was  per- 
formed at  the  College  de  Navarre  in  Paris,  in  which  both 
the  Queen  and  Roussel  were,  to  the  delight  of  the  theo- 
logians present,  held  up  to  ridicule.  As  this  affair  con- 
travened important  statutes  relating  to  the  King's 
honour  and  majesty,  the  President  of  the  College  was 
put  in  prison.1 

It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  the  vexations  which  he 
suffered  from  the  obscurantists  disposed  Francis  to 
favour  the  opposite  party,  the  Evangelicals.  There 
can,  indeed,  be  no  doubt  as  to  his  own  personal  views 
about  these  latter.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Council 
of  Berne  (20th  October,  1533),  he  announced,  with  scant 
courtesy,  that  he  intended  to  be  Very  Christian  both 
in  name  and  act,  and,  consequently,  meant  to  drive 
out  every  atom  of  heresy  from  his  kingdom.2  Almost 
immediately  after,  a  fierce  persecution  of  the  French 
Evangelicals  arose,  and  Nicolas  Cop,  a  son  of  Francis's 
favourite  physician,  experienced  the  severity  of  the 
new  policy.  Cop  had  been  elected  Rector  of  the 
University  of  Paris,  and  had  delivered  an  inaugural 
address  to  that  corporation  on  ist  November,  1533. 
The  address,3  though  read  by  Cop,  had  been  written 
by  John  Calvin  (then  comparatively  unknown),  and, 
as  it  contained  some  references  to  the  doctrine  of 

Chancellor  of  Paris  to  do  so  "  ne  quid  dennirent  sine  Scripturis."  Even  the 
Pontiff  threatened  the  Sorbonnists  with  his  anathema,  because  the  book 
in  question  bore,  on  its  title-page,  the  papal  approbation.  Truly,  time 
had  altered  (but  for  the  moment  only)  the  fashions  that  were  in  vogue 
when  poor  Berquin  was  burnt. 

1  Epp.  of  Sturm  to  Bucer,  and  Calvin  to  Daniel,  October,  1533 — 
Herm.,  Ill,  93  et  seq.,  106  et  seq.  In  addition,  King  Francis  (24th  Octo- 
ber) compelled  the  University  to  reverse  its  condemnation  of  Margaret's 
book,  Lc  Miroir  de  Fame  p/'dirresse — Bulaeus,  VI,  238. 

2  Herm.,  Ill,  96. 

3  Ibid.,  418  et  seq.  An  extract  from  the  autograph  MS.  of  this  famous 
discourse  is  there  given. 


ROUSSEL  AND   B£DA  307 

Justification  which  were  suspected  of  heresy,  Cop  found 
it  advisable  to  flee  to  Basle  for  safety.  On  10th  Decem- 
ber King  Francis  instructed  Parliament  to  execute  with 
diligence  the  laws  against  heresy.1 

In  the  fluctuations  of  the  King's  foreign  policy  the 
recall  of  Beda  and  the  imprisonment  of  Roussel  (towards 
the  end  of  1533), 2  formed  merely  moves  in  the  game,  for, 
in  the  early  portion  of  1534,  he  reverted  to  his  previous 
decision,  releasing  Roussel  and  imprisoning  Beda  on  a 
charge  of  lese-majeste.3  But  this  did  not  indicate  a 
mitigation  of  the  vigour  directed  against  the  aggressive 
Evangelicals  for  one  of  them  was  burnt  at  Paris  on  18th 
June,  1534. *  Nor  was  the  mischievous  and  wanton  act 
of  posting  the  placards  which  contained  inflammatory 
denunciations  of  the  Mass,  during  the  night  of  1 7-1 8th 
October,  1534, 5  conducive  to  any  relaxation  of  the  re- 
pressive measures  in  course  of  execution.6  Far  from  it. 
Imprisonments  and  burnings  forthwith  became  almost 
indiscriminate  in  consequence  of  the  blind  fury  that 
sprang  from  the  outraged  sentiments  of  the  people.7 

1  For  this  royal  mandate,  see  ibid.,  114^  seq. 
*  Ibid.,  146,  n.  2,  159,  n.  2. 

3  Epp.  of  Nicolas  Cop  to  Bucer,  Basle,  5th  April,  1534,  and  Myconius 
to  Bullinger,  8th  April,  1534 — Ibid.,  158-9,  160  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  16.  2,  n.  16  ;    Cronique  du  Roy  Francoys  premier,  p.  1 11,  n.  1. 
8  These  placards  were  affixed  not  only  in  Paris  but  at  Orleans  and 

Amboise  (where  the  King  was  staying),  and  at  other  places  throughout 
France — Journal,  etc.,  pp.  441-2;  Cronique,  etc.,  pp.  no  et  seq.; 
Herm.,  Ill,  225-6.  The  text  of  the  placards  is  given  in  the  appendix  to 
the  Cronique,  etc.,  pp.  464-72. 

6  Lutheroth  (Henri),  La  Reformation  en  France  pendant  sa  premiere 
period V,  Paris,  1859,  pp.  15-6,  declares  that  Jean  du  Bellay,  Bishop  of 
Paris,  and  the  leading  clergy  of  the  capital,  had  been  negotiating  with 
Kinij  Francis  for  the  introduction  of  a  reformation  based  upon  the  Con- 
fession of  Augsburg,  but  the  posting  of  the  placards  destroyed  all  hopes 
of  success  for  this  project. 

7  Fras.  Op.,  l\],  1505c,  E  (Masson's  ep.  to  Erasmus,  29th  June,  1535) ; 
the  Journal,  etc.,  pp.  443-52  ;  and  the  Cronique,  etc.,  pp.  1 10-4, 
129-32,  136,  afford  some  idea  of  the  appalling  number  of  the  burnings 
and  mutilations  of  heretics  which  followed  the  posting  of  the  placards 
nd  the  religious  commotions  among  the  people  incident  thereon. 


3oS  PARTISANSHIP 

But,  if  the  placards  had  offended  the  religious  sensibi- 
lities of  the  people,  the  subsequent  holocausts  shocked 
not  to  say  Chiistian  feeling,  but  the  very  commonest 
instincts  of  humanity.  Even  Pope  Paul  III  felt  shame 
at  the  scandal  and  (June,  1535)  begged  the  French 
King  to  abate  the  severities  meted  out  to  the  heretical 
Evangelicals.1 

As  for  Roussel,  he  continued  in  his  office  of  almoner 
to  the  King  and  Queen  of  Navarre.  His  royal  patrons, 
towards  the  close  of  1535,  nominated  him  to  the  see  of 
Oleron,  left  vacant  by  the  death  of  a  relative  of  the 
King  of  Navarre.  They  recommended  him  so  warmly 
to  the  new  Pope  that  Paul  confirmed  him  in  the  pre- 
ferment.2 

Thus,  of  the  Meldois  sodality,  Lefevre  was  ending  his 
days  in  quiet  but  regretful  retirement  at  Nerac  ;  Michel 
d'Arande  was  administering  an  episcopal  charge,  no 
doubt  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  but  in  complete  seques- 
tration from  reforming  enterprises  ;  Gerard  Roussel,  by 
a  similar  promotion,  was  rinding  himself  reduced  to  a 
like  inactivity  ;  Vatable  had  already  become  Professor 
of  Hebrew  at  the  College  Royal  in  Paris,8  and,  owing 
to  his  freedom  in  interpreting  the  Scriptures  according 
to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  texts,  had  not  been  altogether 
free  from  the  attentions  of  Beda.*  Briconnet,  after 
having  lain  for  a  considerable  number  of  years  under 
the  distrustful  vigilance  of  Beda's  party,1  at  length 

1  Journal,  p.  458.  Cp.  the  ep.  of  John  Sturm  to  Melanchthon,  9th  July, 
1535 — Hcrm.,  IIJ,  311.  Cousin  gave  Boniface  Amerbach  (4th  Novem- 
ber, 1534)  a  favourable  report  of  the  character  of  the  new  Pontiff  and 
added,  "  Italus  est,  et  scribunt  eum  Gallis  favere" — Ibil.,  221,  n.  10. 
Erasmus,  Op.  Ill,  [513A,  says  that  there  was  a  rumour  that  Henry  VIII 
had  helped  to  induce  Francis  to  greater  clemency  towards  the  Evan- 
gelicals. 

2  Bulaeus,  VI,  936  :  "  Verum  resipicisse  &  ad  Ecclesiam  Roman, 
revertisse  fatentur  ipsimet  Haeretici.    Viuebat  adhuc  an.  1537." 

8  Bulaeus,  VI,  221,  says  1529  ;  Herm.,  Ill,  161,  n.  10,  says  1532. 

*In  1533-4,  Bdda  cited  Vatable  and  some  other  professors  of  the 
College  Royal  before  Parliament  on  this  charge,  but  it  was  disallowed — 
Bulaeus,  VI,  237,  244  ;  Herm.,  Ill,  161,  n.  12. 

•Herm.,  Ill,  158,  n.  4. 


LAST   DAYS   OF   ERASMUS  309 

retired  from  his  see,  and,  a  short  time  later,  died  at  his 
own  chateau  of  Aimans  (24th  January,  1534). *  Of  the 
remainder,  Pierre  Toussain,  as  we  have  seen,  hesitated 
for  some  time  to  join  the  militant  section  of  the  Evan- 
gelicals, but  ultimately  decided  to  cast  in  his  lot  with 
them.  Pierre  Caroli,  though  he  had  to  flee  from  France 
and  consorted  with  Farel  and  Viret  (early  in  1535), * 
began  very  soon  to  be  a  source  of  trouble  to  his  new 
associates,  with  whom  it  is  questionable  if  he  ever  really 
agreed  in  religious  opinions.8  He  married  in  1535,  and 
was  appointed  chief  pastor  at  Lausanne,  but  his 
teachings  there  were  so  opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Evangelicals  that  they  deprived  him.  No  little 
disturbance  arose  over  the  business,  which  ended  in 
Caroli's  applying  to  the  Pope  for  absolution  (which  was 
granted)  and  in  his  recall  to  France  by  the  King.* 

We  have  left  Erasmus  to  the  last.  A  few  words  will 
here  suffice  ;  it  is  unnecessary  to  dilate  upon  the  final 
particulars  of  his  life,  since  numerous  biographies  of 
him  have  described,  and  that  too  in  eloquent  language, 
the  pathetic  situation  of  this  wonderful  man  during  his 
closing  years.  His  sharp  pen,  keener  than  any  sword, 
fenced  busily  with  his  many  adversaries,  and  he  never 
delivered  a  thrust  without  drawing  blood.  Neverthe- 
less, though  not  one  to  shirk  a  literary  contest,  inas- 
much as  he  had  become  conscious  of  his  invincible 
prowess,  he  quitted  Louvain  for  Basle,  believing  that  at 
the  latter  place  his  daily  life  would  be  more  peaceful. 
In  this  conclusion  he  was  correct,  for,  except  from 
extreme  Evangelicals  such  as  Farel,  he  received  every 

x  Cronique,  p.  101  ;   Bulaeus,  VI,  936. 

2  Herm.,  Ill,  237,  n.  12,  295,  n.  11 ;  Cronique,  p.  1 30 :  Barnaud,  J'iret, 
pp.  1  55  el  seq. 

3Herm.,  Ill,  337,  373,  389. 

4  Ibid.,  IV,  94,  105-9,  234"42-  See  the  ep.  of  Caroli  to  Pope  Paul  III, 
June,  1537 — Ibid.,  248-51.  Extracts  from  the  Pope's  reply  are  given  by 
Herm.,  IV,  251-2.  The  recall  of  Caroli  by  King  Francis  is  recorded  in  an 
ep.  of  Mvconius  to  Bullinger,  26th  July,  1537 — Ibid.,  266  et  scq.  Cp.  also 
Barnaud,  1'iret,  pp.  244  et  seq. 


310  PARTISANSHIP 

mark  of  consideration  and  respect  from  the  inhabitants, 
and  with  many  of  the  reformers  there  he  had  most 
amicable  relations.  From  this  secure  retreat,  he  not 
only  fought  with,  but  laughed  at,  the  champions  of 
both  parties.1 

Since  the  publication  of  his  Praise  of  Folly,  no  humo- 
rous composition  of  his  was  so  censorious  and  resentful 
as  his  Epistle  to  the  Impudent  Jackdaws,  written  during 
his  residence  at  Basle.2   He  begins  it  thus  : — 

Des.  Erasmus  Rot.  quibusdam  Fratribus  absque 
observantia,  bonam  mentem. 

By  this  document  I  give  you  notice,  Brethren  and 
Fathers,  bribe,  lie,  deceive,  and  contemn  the 
ordinances  of  the  Emperor  and  Bishops,  put  forth  your 
surreptitious  pamphlets,  henceforth  1  shall  not  lower 
myself  to  read,  much  less  confute,  your  trash.  God 
Himself  will  search  out  all  impious  hypocrites,  and  I 
commit  you  to  His  just  judgment. 

In  a  sarcastic  mood,  he  reminds  them  of  the  vigour, 
mental  and  bodily,  that  God  still  continues  to  him,  and 
recounts  all  the  works  which  the  "  delicate  old  man  " 
has  done  and  is  doing. 

Where  then  is  that  old  death's-head  tottering  into 
the  grave  (decrepitum  ac  mox  collapsurum  sili- 
cernium)  ? 

Then  Erasmus,  apostrophizing  the  upright  and 
respectable,  exclaims  : — 

Pious  Fathers,  restrain  these  donkeys  !  Pious  lay- 
men, when  ye  hear  them  raving  thus,  withhold  your 
generosity.  .  .  .  For  the  future,  I  will  treat  them 
with  disdain,  and  I  ought  to  have  done  this  long  ago. 
Let  the  frogs  croak  !  and  let  them  say,  with  a  fine  con- 
tempt for  all  law,   human   and  divine,    "  We  ought 

1  For  his  witty  jests  upon  the  marriages  of  the  Lutherans  and  Evan- 
gelicals, see  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1139B,  1071E  :  and  for  his  caustic  reply  to 
the  criticisms  of  the  obscurantists  on  Luther's  marriage  with  Catherine 
von  Bora,  a  former  nun,  see  ibid.,  919F. 

*  Desiderii  Erasmi  Epistola  ad  quosdam  impudentissimos  Graculos, 
for  which  see  Eras.  Op.,  X,  1745-6. 


MONKS   AND   EVANGELICALS  311 

rather  to  obey  God  than  men  " — words  right  enough 
in  the  mouths  of  the  Apostles,  but  by  no  means  suit- 
able in  theirs  :  for  the  God  is  not  the  same  in  each 
case  :  among  the  former  the  God  was  the  Creator  of 
heaven  and  earth,  among  the  latter  the  only  deity  is 
their  belly.     Farewell. 

Although  from  time  to  time  persistently  urged  by  the 
Evangelicals  to  join  their  party,  Erasmus  found  Basle, 
on  the  whole,  a  quiet  place  to  dwell  in  and  much  more 
convenient  for  his  personal  safety  than  many  other 
towns  would  have  been  at  that  period.  But  when  at 
last  the  reforming  party  had  gained  such  a  degree  of 
power  in  the  town  as  to  win  it  over  altogether  to  their 
side,1  Erasmus  judged  it  wiser  to  quit  it  :  the  overtures 
of  his  Evangelical  friends  were  likely  to  become  too 
eager  to  accord  with  his  desires.2  He  certainly  did  not, 
and  could  not,  agree  with  their  opinions.3 

No  sooner  did  he  arrive  at  Freiburg  than  he  indited  a 
long  epistle  to  them  which  corresponds  with  his  Letter 
to  the  Impudent  Jackdaws,  save  that  the  brutal  irony 
of  that  composition  was  exchanged  for  the  unjust 
causticity  of  the  more  elaborate  epistolary  treatise 
which  he  directed  against  the  "  so-called  Evangeli- 
cals."4 A  few  extracts  will  sufficiently  illustrate  the 
tenor  of  this  entire  treatise  : — 

Ye  say  that  evangelical  truth  has  been  buried  for 
more  than  a  thousand  years  until  ye  resurrected  it  for 
us.  If  that  be  correct,  ye  have  a  more  difficult  task 
before  you  than  the  Apostles  in  former  times.  .  .  . 
The    utterances    of    the   prophets    declared    that   the 

1  Herzog  (Dr.  J.  J.).  (Ecolampade,  le  Rcjormateur  de  Bale,  traduit  de 
l'allemand  et  abrege  par  A.  de  Mestral,  Neuchatel,  1848,  pp.  259-72. 

*  Ep,  of  Erasmus  to  Pirckheimer,  9th  May,  1529 — Eras.  Op.,  Ill, 
1 189. 

3  Ep.  of  Erasmus  to  CEcolampadius  (written  before  he  left  Basle,  1529) 
—  Ibid.,  1221C-F.    Cp.  Herzog,  pp.  247-58. 

*  Desiderii  Erasmi  Epistola  contra  qtiosdam,  qui  se  falso  jactant  Evan- 
gelicos — Eras.  Op.,  X,  1 573-1 587.  It  was  inscribed  to  Vulturius  Neo- 
comus,  a  pseudonym  for  Gerard  Geldenhauer,  and  was  followed  by  two 
short  epp.  of  later  dates  ostensibly  addressed  to  Eleuthcrius  and  Grunnius. 


312  PARTISANSHIP 

Gentiles,  leaving  the  worship  of  demons  and  images, 
would  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  It  was 
likewise  foretold  concerning  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Jews  that  they  would  fade  away  like  shadows  before 
the  bright  light  of  the  Gospel.  But,  in  the  things  ye 
reject,  what  absurdity  or  ridiculousness  is  there,  pray? 
...  I  am  not  now  speaking  of  fasts  or  vestments  or 
rites,  which  even  hypocrites  do  feign,  but  a  readiness 
in  submitting  to  trials,  a  gentleness  in  bearing 
injuries,  a  frank  disposition,  kindly,  unconscious  of 
malice  and  eager  to  be  on  good  terms  with  all  men,  a 
resignation  to  all  human  vicissitudes  and  a  holding 
light  carnal  advantages — it  was  these  that  gave  value 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  If  they  called  the 
people  away  from  old  customs,  they  offered  them 
things  far  better.  .  .  .  Among  accustomed  things 
there  is  none  meets  your  approval,  but  ye  root  up  the 
tares  and  the  wheat,  or  to  put  it  better,  ye  root  up  the 
wheat  instead  of  the  tares.  .  .  .  Statues  have  been 
cast  out  of  the  churches,  but  what  does  that  signify, 
if  none  the  less  vices  are  worshipped  as  idols  in  the 
heart?  .  .  .  Solemn  prayers  have  been  relinquished, 
but  now  there  are  very  many  who  offer  up  no  prayers 
at  all,  though  continual  and  chaste  prayer  is  the  most 
suitable  sacrifice  for  Christians  to  offer.  The  Mass 
has  been  abolished,  has  there  anything  as  sanctified 
taken  its  place?  .  .  .  Confession  has  been  abolished, 
but  very  many  now  hardly  confess  even  to  God. 
Choice  of  meats  has  been  discarded  along  with  the 
fasts,  but  there  is  plenty  of  debauchery,  and,  in  flee- 
ing from  Judaism,  they  have  fallen  into  Epicureanism. 
.  .  .  The  Apostles  had  no  prescribed  fastdays,  it  is 
true,  but  they  fasted  daily  of  their  own  accord.  They 
knew  nothing  of  differences  of  meats,  but  of  their  own 
free  choice  used  only  the  commonest,  and  that,  too, 
with  the  greatest  frugality.1 

And  so  on.  His  argument  reviewed  in  the  same  strain 
the  several  points  wherein  the  Evangelicals  were  at 
variance  with  their  opponents.  If  the  treatise  served 
no  other  purpose,  at  any  rate  it  rendered  undeniably 

1  Eras.  Op.,  X    1577D-1578F. 


THE  PASSING  OF  ERASMUS  313 

evident  to  all  men  that,  though  many  things  amongst 
the  obscurantists  and  curialists  displeased  Erasmus, 
the  Evangelicals  and  the  Lutherans  did  not  present  him 
with  the  solution  to  any  of  the  problems  thus  raised 
for  him.1 

He  had  retired  to  Freiburg  drawn  there  partly  by  a 
desire  to  reside  where  his  attitude  towards  the  refor- 
mers would  not  be  misconstrued  by  his  friends  on  the 
imperial  and  papal  side,  and  partly  with  the  hope  of 
leaving  his  bones  in  a  district  wherein  some  of  the  old 
familiar  ideals  of  Catholic  Christendom  still  found  a 
home.  But  when  he  departed  from  Basle  he  quitted 
a  large  company  of  kind  friends  whose  intimacy  he  had 
learnt  to  appreciate,  however  much  he  might  censure 
their  opinions  and  methods.  These  he  missed  in 
Freiburg.  Accordingly,  after  the  lapse  of  some  years, 
during  which  he  dwelt,  not  altogether  unhappily,  at 
the  latter  place,  he  returned  to  Basle,  in  order  to  super- 
intend the  publication  of  some  fresh  compositions.  It 
was  fated  that  he  should  never  again  leave  it.  The 
malady  from  which  he  had  been  long  suffering  took  a 
new  form.  He  became  very  feeble,  but  not  yet  entirely 
incapacitated  from  the  labours  of  overseeing  the 
production  of  his  works.* 

His  last  extant  letter  is  that  to  Conrad  Goclen,  dated 
28th  June,  1536.'  In  it,  he  mentioned  that  at  Basle  he 
had  many  affectionate  friends  such  as  he  had  not  at 
Freiburg,  but  he  added,* 

nevertheless,  on  account  of  the  disturbances  over 
doctrines,  I  would  rather  end  my  life  elsewhere.  If 
only  Brabant  were  nearer  ! 

The  playful  wit,  for  which  he  had  been  famous, 
remained  with  him  to  the  very  end.  A  few  days  before 
his  death  when  three  of  his  friends  came  to  visit  him,  he 
jestingly  compared  them  to  Job's  comforters.    On  12th 

1  Ibid.,  III,  1349A.  2  Drummond,  II,  335-6. 

'  Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1 521-2.  *  Ibid.,  1522B. 


314  PARTISANSHIP 

July,  1536,  he  passed  away  with  the  exclamation  of 
"  lieber  God  "  on  his  lips. 

To  a  certain  extent  it  was  fitting  that  he  should  thus 
have  died  in  a  Protestant  town.  There  at  least  he 
could  receive  funeral  honours  that  had  no  censure  of 
his  erudition  or  prohibition  of  his  books  to  mar  them. 
If,  as  the  monks  prophesied,  in  their  vile  Latin,  he  died 
sine  lux,  sine  crux,  that  is,  without  those  consolations 
to  which  the  ignorant  had  assigned  a  fictitious  value, 
this,  in  all  probability,  accorded  with  his  own  desires. 
At  any  rate,  the  last  testaments  of  all  three  great 
Christians  (and  Catholics),  Colet,  Lefevre,  and  Erasmus, 
though  these  men  had  not  embraced  the  principles  of 
the  militant  reformers,  displayed  one  remarkable 
feature  in  common  :  not  a  penny  did  they  bequeath  for 
masses,  or  obits,  nor  did  they  make  any  so-called  reli- 
gious benefactions.  A  coincidence  of  this  kind  is  not 
without  significance. 

Followed  by  magistrates  and  professors,  students 
from  the  University  bore  his  remains  to  the  Cathedral 
where  they  lie  buried,  with  a  stone  tablet  to  mark  the 
place.1 

His  friends,  More,  Fisher,  and  Warham  had  pre- 
deceased him.  He  had  lived  long  enough  to  see  the 
shattering  of  the  final  hopes  of  a  really  Catholic  refor- 
mation, as  every  champion  and  open  promoter  of  it  had 
exchanged  the  buffetings  of  ecclesiastical  partisanships 
for  the  purely  Catholic  repose  of  Paradise.  When  he 
had  reached  that  point  in  his  earthly  life,  Erasmus  had 
lived  too  long.  He  himself  realized  that  fact  a  few 
months  before  his  demise,  when,  on  reviewing  his 
correspondence,  he  noticed  how  many  of  the  writers  had 
passed  away.  Thereupon,  he  sighed  and  exclaimed :  ■ 

Nee  ego  diutius  vivere  cupio,  si  CHRISTO 
Domino  placeat.  (And  I,  too,  have  no  wish  to  live 
any  longer,  if  it  be  the  will  of  Christ  the  Lord.) 

1  Drummond,  II,  338. 

2  Ep.  of  Bcatus  Rhenanus  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V,  1st  June,  1540 — 
Eras.  Op.,  I,  in  Praef.,  •  •  *  3. 


CONCLUSION 

The  year  1536  was  one  in  which  the  western  Church 
presented  to  all  the  world  the  spectacle  of  a  house 
divided  against  itself.  Serious  disruptions  had  taken 
place ;  the  quarrels  and  disputes  which  had  begun  within 
the  fold  of  the  Church  had  become  compl  cated  with 
many  and  various  issues.  Parties  were  now  well  advanced 
in  the  process  of  formation  whose  aims  were  not  always 
the  amelioration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  but  that,  if  wise  measures  of  improvement  had 
been  introduced  into  the  Christian  estate  at  any  time 
during  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  centuries,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  insistent  demands  from  every  quarter 
of  Europe,  the  terrible  conflicts,  not  only  religious  but 
political,  of  the  sixteenth  might  have  been  avoided 
(consult  Mr.  Francis  Fortescue  Urquhart,  in  the 
Catholic  Encyclopedia,  III,  sub  voce  "  Christendom," 
p.  704).  But  the  forces  that  had  retarded  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  desirable  object  had  been  reinforced 
by  others  more  openly  hostile,  and,  in  the  issue,  when 
reform  came,  it  bore  a  shape  of  which  its  first  promoters 
had  not  dreamt. 

So  far,  indeed,  as  the  purely  ecclesiastical  problem 
was  concerned,  two  parties  were,  at  this  juncture, 
distinctly  marked  out  :  the  reformed  or  Evangelical 
or  Protestant,  and  the  obscurantist  or  curialist.  To  one 
or  other  of  these  every  Christian  was  obliged  to  belong. 
Erasmus  and  Lefevre  had  been  able  to  hold  themselves 
aloof  from  both,  but  if  their  age  had  been  cast  a  decade 
or  two  later  than  it  was,  they  also  would  have  had  to 

315 


316  CONCLUSION 

solve  for  themselves  the  same  difficulties  as  confronted 
their  younger  friends  and  compatriots.  The  time  truly 
had  arrived  when  intimate  associates  found  themselves 
parted  sharply  asunder  by  the  new  circumstances  which 
had  arisen.  Many  of  them  had  together  striven  for 
the  betterment  of  the  Church  ;  their  ideals  had  been 
high  and  noble,  their  projects  pure,  their  Catholicity 
unquestionable,  their  amity  cordial.  But,  though 
ancient  friendship  still  existed,  though  kindly  senti- 
ments of  mutual  esteem  and  goodwill  were  common 
amongst  opponents  who  had  once  been  comrades,  an 
increasing  series  of  fresh  causes  of  cleavage  were 
separating  them  more  and  more,  were,  in  fact,  opening 
between  them  a  chasm  which  could  not  be  bridged. 
Wolfgang  Kopfel  (or  Capito),  Gerard  Geldenhauer 
(Noviomagus),  Pierre  Toussain,  and  numerous  others, 
had  ranged  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  Evangelicals. 
Caesarius  of  Julich,  Philip  Engelbrecht,  and  Glareanus  ; 
John  Clement,  Cuthbert  Tunstall,  William  Latimer, 
and  Richard  Croke ;  Roussel,  Arande,  Bude\  and 
Queen  Margaret  of  Navarre,  had  definitely  taken  their 
stand  with  the  curialists.  Crotus  Rubeanus  had  quitted 
the  reformers,  and  made  his  peace  with  the  obscuran- 
tists. Agrippa  in  vain  protested  that  he  was  no  Luthe- 
ran but  a  Catholic  ;  his  adherence  to  the  curialist 
party  became  the  only  invincible  argument  he  could 
have  employed  to  vindicate  his  Catholicity. 

It  must  not  be  imagined  that  the  men  who  had 
long  advocated  the  removal  of  abuses,  ceased,  at  any 
moment  in  their  subsequent  careers,  to  regard  a  refor- 
mation in  the  Church  as  necessary  or  desirable.  On  the 
contrary,  they  still  longed  for  it,  but  they  had  learnt 
from  experience  that  the  hopes  by  which  in  former  days 
they  had  been  animated  were  illusory  :  they  had  wit- 
nessed the  occurrence  of  events  which  rendered  the 
fulfilment  of  these  desires  impossible.  Men  are,  after 
all,  the  playthings  of  circumstances,  and,  however  high 


CHANGE  OF  CATHOLIC   IDEALS        317 

their  aspirations,  they  cannot  be  sure  of  noble  achieve- 
ments ;  unbidden  things  intrude  themselves  into  their 
schemes,  and  what,  at  one  time,  appeared  a  clearly 
marked  road  leading  to  a  wished-for  goal  turns  out  to  be 
so  intersected  with  side-paths  that,  at  length,  the 
original  goal  is  missed  and  another  quite  different  is 
reached.  The  Catholic  reformers  had  striven  for  a 
Catholic  reformation  ;  they  saw  themselves,  in  the  end, 
compelled  to  make  a  choice  between  advanced  curialism 
and  a  reformation  which  many  of  them  intuitively 
believed  to  harbour  the  germs  of  infinite  secessions. 

Imperceptibly,  during  the  period  which  has  been 
under  consideration  in  this  treatise,  the  ideals  of 
Catholicity  had  been  altering,  and  were  destined  to 
alter  still  more,  and  western  Christendom  was  perforce 
endeavouring  to  adjust  its  powers  of  thought,  not  only 
to  the  conditions  upon  which  reform  might  be  obtained, 
but  to  the  new  meanings  that  were  being  assigned  to 
this  title  of  orthodoxy.  None  had  as  yet  lost  the  desire 
to  be  accounted  Catholic,  but,  though  all  held  that  the 
term  signified  soundness  of  doctrine,  their  views  of  the 
centralizing  authority  which  was  implied  in  its  conno- 
tation had  become  various.  Some  had  adopted  the 
curialist  interpretation  of  ecclesiastical  authority  that 
had  been  hitherto  struggling  for  general  acceptance. 
Some,  but  these  were  now,  by  the  pressure  of  events, 
diminishing  in  number,  believed,  as  did  Aegidius  of 
Viterbo  and  Pope  Adrian  VI,  that  the  persistent  ad- 
vance of  the  claims  of  the  papacy  should  be  curbed,  and 
the  seat  of  authority  recognized  as  pertaining  to  the 
Church  Universal.  Others,  the  Lutherans  and  Evan- 
gelicals, had  convinced  themselves  that  the  final  court 
of  appeal  was  the  written  word  of  God.  Scripture  for 
them  gave  the  decisive  sentence  ;  but,  since  each 
individual  exercised  his  own  powers  of  discernment  as 
to  what  the  sacred  text  meant,  amongst  the  reformers 
Catholicity  and  purity  of  doctrine  became  practically 
synonymous  terms.  Others  still,  such  as  Henry  VIII  of 


318  CONCLUSION 

England,  with  his  courtiers  and  abettors,  were  passion- 
ately eager  to  continue  Catholics,  though  they  disputed 
the  right  of  the  papal  jurisdiction  to  be  regarded  as  an 
essential  to  the  enjoyment  of  Catholicity.  These, 
accordingly,  fell  back  on  the  expedient  of  attaching  to 
a  temporal  monarchy  an  extraordinary  amount  of 
magisterial  power  over  its  own  national  division  of  the 
Church,  thus  attempting  to  import  into  the  signification 
of  the  title  "Catholic  "  an  element  altogether  new  to  the 
Christian  people  of  that  age. 

Besides  the  many  perplexities  of  the  ecclesiastical 
world,  the  conflicting  aims  of  the  political  augmented 
the  general  mass  of  compilations.  No  ecclesiastical 
question  could  now  be  without  its  political  side  ; 
politics  had  entered  very  largely  into  the  domain  of 
religion,  to  the  detriment  of  the  latter.  Henceforth, 
therefore,  reforms  could  only  be  devised  which  were  in 
strict  accordance  with  political  expediency  ;  some  men 
might  advocate  the  papal  claims,  others  Protestant 
independence  of  the  rights  of  national  churches,  but, 
willingly  or  unwillingly,  they  had  to  take  into  account 
the  political  aspect  of  their  teachings. 

Out  of  all  this  turmoil  has  been  evolved  the  present- 
day  condition  of  western  Christendom.  For  good  or 
ill,  we  are  divided.  It  would  seem  as  if  no  good  thing 
can  come  into  this  world  of  ours  unaccompanied  by 
some  evil.  Division  amongst  Christians  is  such  an  evil ; 
but,  apparently,  a  purification  of  Christianity  could  not 
be  wrought  except  at  this  heavy  price. 

We  must,  indeed,  confess  that  Protestantism — to 
employ  a  modern  appellative  which  will  comprehend  all 
the  various  bodies  of  reformers  who,  from  the  sixteenth 
century  to  the  present  time,  have  aimed  at  a  revival, 
and  in  some  cases  a  reconstruction,  of  religion,  outside 
the  Roman  communion — has  shown  itself  to  be,  on  the 
whole,  the  home  of  intellectual  freedom  ;  and  no  marvel 
is  here,  for  without  this  freedom  Protestantism  could 
have  had  no  permanence.     Yet,  it  must  be  observed, 


CATHOLIC   UNITY  319 

the  freedom  of  one  person  may  be  so  emphasized  as  to 
curtail  seriously  the  liberty  of  another  ;  illustrations  of 
this  truth  have  been  at  all  times  abundant  in  the  records 
of  Protestantism.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ready 
obedience  of  Roman  Catholics  to  the  dictates  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power  to  which  they  have  given  their 
allegiance  has  appeared  to  many  outside  their  com- 
munion a  token  of  mental  serfdom.  And  it  may  well 
be  questioned  if  a  rigid  system  of  unfaltering  obedience 
can  be  beneficial  to  the  mind  and  soul  of  every  man  in 
equal  degree.  We,  indeed,  believe  that  there  are  some 
particulars  of  religion  in  regard  to  which  each  Christian 
should  be  admonished  to  exercise  responsibly  his 
spiritual  manhood ;  that  large  numbers  actually, 
though  not  always  with  conscientious  frankness,  do  so 
more  frequently  than  is  commonly  imagined,  we  think 
capable  of  proof.  Among  Christians,  it  is  true,  a  Catho- 
lic spirit  ought  to  prevail,  but  we  are  convinced  that  it 
should  be  one  which  would  manifest  itself  not  only  by 
that  consideration  for  the  interests  of  all  upon  which 
alone  premanent  umcy  can  be  based,  but  by  the  candid 
recognition  of  the  •  lienable  rights  of  the  individual. 
For  many  centuries  Rome  has  placed  herself  before 
Christendom  as  the  central  power  in  the  Church 
(magistra  ecclesiarum) ,  and  Christendom  is  as  cognizant 
to-day  as  in  former  ages  of  the  advantages  which  would 
accrue  to  religion  from  a  centralized  form  of  government. 
Rome,  however,  during  the  past  four  hundred  years, 
has  imposed  conditions  upon  union  which  have  proved 
her  abhorrence  of  all  liberty  of  thought,  as  well  as  of  the 
individualistic  claims  of  Protestantism. 

Our  survey  of  the  events  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
therefore,  awakens  in  us  feelings  of  regret  at  the  dis- 
ruptions which  then  took  place  in  the  Christian  Church. 
Nevertheless,  we  are  not  unmindful  that  God,  in  His 
merciful  providence,  has,  in  spite  of  the  faults  and  errors 
then  committed  by  the  belligerent  parties,  in  spite  of  the 
impatient  vehemence  of  one  and  the  cruel  fury  of 


320  CONCLUSION 

another,  in  spite  of  the  conflicting  ambitions  and  the 
warring  leagues  of  that  period,  brought  out  of  these 
tumults  of  the  past  great  benefits  for  all. 

Regret  is  vain  if  it  be  unfruitful  in  hopes  for  the  future. 
What  the  ages  to  come  have  in  store  for  Christendom 
is  known  to  God  alone.  The  yearnings  of  our  own  epoch 
for  the  union  of  all  who  name  the  ineffable  Name  of 
Christ  cannot  fail  to  be  productive  of  salutary  results, 
even  if  the  day  of  their  manifestation  lies  in  the  distant 
future.  Almost  insuperable  obstacles  stand  in  the  way 
of  their  fulfilment,  but  patient  and  faithful  hopes 
founded  upon  the  will  of  God  to  do,  and  the  power  of  God 
to  perform,  cannot  for  ever  meet  with  disappointment. 

We  have  seen  the  attempts  at  reunion,  begotten  of 
passionate  longings  for  a  restoration  of  the  former  ideals 
of  Catholicity,  which  were  made  or  contemplated  during 
the  century  that  followed  the  rending  of  the  western 
Church  :  the  cherished  scheme  of  Archbishop  Cranmer 
to  effect  an  organic  union  of  all  the  reformed  bodies  of 
his  time  ;  the  proposals  of  Sully  for  the  establishment 
of  a  "  Christian  Republic  "  under  the  presidency  of  the 
Roman  pontiff ;  the  tentative  efforts  of  the  English 
Church,  in  the  early  years  of  the  Stuart  period,  to  unite 
with  the  Calvinistic  Churches  of  the  Continent,  with  the 
Eastern  Church,  and  with  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  and, 
in  addition,  the  revival  of  a  similar  project  in  the  days  of 
Bossuet.  A  consideration  of  these  endeavours  to  heal 
the  divisions  of  Christendom  impels  us  to  express  our 
unfeigned  appreciation  of  the  noble  instincts  of  those 
who  designed  them.  But  a  recollection  of  the  miserable 
failure  which  attended  each  of  them  might,  perhaps, 
lead  us  to  the  imprudent  decision  that  reunion  on  any 
extensive  scale  is  now  outside  the  range  of  human 
probabilities,  that  the  passage  of  the  ages,  instead  of 
supplying  new  clues  to  a  solution  of  this  religious 
problem,  will  only  enlarge  existing  difficulties  and  con- 
tribute others,  that,  in  short,  all  real  Catholicity  belongs 
to  the  past  history  of  the  Church.     Such  pessimism, 


THE   HOPE  OF  REUNION  321 

however,  should  have  no  place  in  the  Church  of  Christ ; 
it  were  far  wiser,  and  certainly  more  consistent  with  the 
credenda  of  our  religion,  to  avow  that  there  are  no  im- 
possibilities with  God.  The  glorious  vision  of  a  re- 
united Christendom  instinct  with  faith,  hope,  and  frater- 
nal love,  is,  no  doubt,  for  the  present  a  fascinating 
dream,  and  nothing  more.  But  it  is  beyond  our  power, 
it  pertains  not  to  us,  to  cast  aside  this  vision.  The 
efforts  towards  re-union  in  the  past  may,  in  truth,  be 
seen  to  have  met  with  failure,  because  that  which  alone 
could  crown  them  with  success  was  absent.  Until, 
indeed,  Christendom  itself,  imbued  with  the  spirit 
of  its  divine  Lord,  proclaims,  as  with  one  voice,  its 
desire  for  a  restoration  of  corporate  unity,  it  would  be 
vain  to  imagine  that  that  beatific  vision  will  transform 
itself  into  a  reality.  For  that  happy  consummation  of 
the  prayers  of  all  the  servants  of  Christ,  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  His  testamentary  wish,  "  that  they  may  be  one 
even  as  We  are  one,"  the  many  sections  of  the  Church 
are  by  duty  bound  to  offer  up  ardent  supplications.  It 
may  be  that  God  will  not  deem  it  advisable  to  comply 
with  the  petition  otherwise  than  by  merging  the  union 
of  the  Church  in  the  still  more  stupendous  issue  of  the 
Coming  of  the  Kingdom.  But,  at  the  same  time,  we 
know  that,  if  He  judges  it  profitable  to  His  Church  on 
earth,  the  power  is  His  to  make  us  one. 


APPENDICES 


I 


Romanxe  has  surrounded  the  origin  of  Desiderius 
Erasmus  of  Rotterdam  with  mystery.  Erasmus  himself 
has  been  not  a  little  responsible  for  this,  owing  to  the  auto- 
biographical details  he  furnished  in  an  epistle  to  Goclen 
(Eras.  Op.,  I.  Praef.).  Till  quite  lately  these  particulars 
were  accepted  as  substantially  true.  According  to  this 
account  a  young  man  of  Gouda,  named  Gerard,  the  young- 
est but  one  of  a  numerous  family  of  sons,  was  destined  by 
his  parents  for  the  priesthood.  He,  however,  loved  a  girl 
named  Margaret,  daughter  of  a  physician.  Though 
Gerard  was  in  some  minor  orders,  the  pair  would  seem  to 
have  been  betrothed.  Consequently,  Gerard  and  his 
parents  quarrelled,  and  he  abandoned  his  home,  leaving 
behind  him  the  girl  he  had  intended  to  marry.  He 
wandered  to  Rome,  where  he  lived  as  a  student.  Whilst 
he  was  there,  his  relatives  sent  him  a  lying  message  that 
the  girl  had  died.  So  grief-stricken  was  he  that  he 
devoted  himself  to  religion  and  became  a  priest.  On  his 
return  to  his  native  place  he  discovered  the  trick,  and 
learnt  that,  in  the  meantime,  Margaret  had  borne  him  a 
son  called  Erasmus  (or  Gerard),  the  famous  scholar  of  later 
days.  Though  now  the  priesthood  was  an  insuperable 
barrier  to  a  closer  union  between  Gerard  and  Margaret, 
yet,  if  the  betrothal  actually  did  exist  at  the  time  of  the 
birth  of  Erasmus,  this  would  have  constituted  a  ground  of 
legitimacy  for  the  child.  Such  is  the  account  that  Mr. 
Charles  Reade  has  woven  into  a  story  which  the  late  Sir 
Walter  Besant  described  as  the  greatest  historical  novel  in 
the  English  language,  The  Cloister  and  the  Hearth. 
Unfortunately  for  the  pretty  romance,  recent  critics  have 
proved  that  Erasmus  was  not  the  only  child  of  the  priest 

323 


324  APPENDICES 

Gerard  and  Margaret,  and,  moreover,  that  their  younger 
son,  the  great  scholar,  when  suing  (in  1516)  for  a  papal 
dispensation  to  cover  the  defect  of  his  birth,  advanced  no 
plea  of  irregularity,  but  openly  professed  his  illegitimacy 
(Eras.  Op.,  Ill,  1821  et  seq. ;  Nichols,  I,  14-16;  Allen,  I, 

App.). 

After  he  had  received  instruction  in  several  schools, 
notably  that  at  Deventer,  and  his  parents  being  now  dead, 
Erasmus  was  induced  by  his  guardian  to  enter  a  convent 
(c.  1482).  Monasticism  became  uncongenial  to  him ;  he 
had  never  desired  it,  at  least  so  he  represented  in  later  life, 
but  certainly  not  during  his  sojourn  in  the  convent  at 
Stein  (see  Nichols,  I,  88).  Having  attracted  the  notice 
of  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai,  an  ecclesiastic  belonging  to  the 
family  that  possessed  the  lordship  of  Bergen,  he  was  taken 
out  of  the  convent  and  attached  to  the  episcopal  retinue 
(c.  1493).  About  a  year  later,  he  obtained  through  his  new 
patron  facilities  for  proceeding  to  Paris  for  purposes  of 
study.     From  time  to  time  he  revisited  the  Netherlands. 

In  Paris  he  dwelt  for  a  short  period  at  the  College  of 
Montaigu,  but  the  inferiority  of  the  sustenance,  both 
bodily  and  mental,  disagreed  with  him.  He  therefore 
retired  from  it,  and  tried  to  maintain  himself  as  a  teacher 
of  Rhetoric,  and  to  continue  his  studies.  In  1496  he 
entered  into  residence  at  the  English  boarding-house,  in 
which  were  several  pupils  of  his,  among  them  Thomas 
Grey,  r.  friend  who  figures  largely  in  his  subsequent  cor- 
respondence, Robert  Fisher,  a  cousin  of  Bishop  Fisher, 
and  William,  Lord  Mountjoy.  The  last  proved  to  be  a 
loyal  patron  and  friend  to  Erasmus  for  many  years,  and 
was  the  means  of  introducing  the  needy  scholars  to  the  best 
supporters  Erasmus  ever  had. 

Either  when  he  was  an  inmate  of  the  Bishop  of  Cambrai's 
palace,  or  perhaps  still  earlier,  Erasmus  made  the 
acquaintance  of  James  Batt,  who  occupied  an  official 
position  in  the  town  of  Bergen-op-Zoom.  Batt  quitted 
Bergen  for  the  Castle  of  Tournehem,  where  he  became 
tutor  to  the  son  of  the  Lady  Anne  of  Veer.  Tourne- 
hem belonged  to  Antony  of  Burgundy,  whose  son 
the  Lady  Anne  had  married.  She  was  now  a  widow,  but 
she  continued  to  live  with  her  father-in-law  and  to  preside 
over  the  household  of  the  bluff  old  warrior.     From  her 


APPENDICES  325 

Erasmus  hoped  to  obtain,  through  Batt,  some  reasonable 
assistance.  With  this  object  in  view,  he  went  to  Tourne- 
hem  for  a  short  visit  (early  in  1499),  but  the  result  was  not 
all  that  he  had  expected.  Soon  afterwards  the  invitation 
to  visit  England  came,  and  accordingly  Erasmus  made  that 
brief  sojourn  in  London  and  Oxford  which  produced  such 
momentous  effects  upon  his  career. 

Of  Tournehem  Castle  hardly  a  vestige  remains.  The 
village  of  Tournehem  (pronounced  locally  Tournon)  lies  to 
the  north-west  of  St.  Omer,  about  two  miles  off  the  main 
road  that  runs  to  Calais,  and  in  all  ten  or  eleven  miles  from 
St.  Omer.  A  ruined  gateway,  through  which  one  enters 
the  village  from  the  St.  Omer  side,  is  probably  the  sole 
remnant  of  Lord  Antony's  old  residence.  None  of  the 
inhabitants  appear  to  know  anything  of  the  history  of  the 
place,  although  likely  enough  the  village  itself  stands  upon 
the  site  of  the  Castle.  In  the  valley  which  stretches  past 
Tournehem  towards  Licques  are  numerous  tokens  that  this 
neighbourhood  was  once  largely  occupied  by  the 
aristocracy. 

It  may  be  of  some  interest  to  note  that  when  Henry 
VIII  was  marching  on  Therouanne  in  his  campaign  of 
1 5 13,  the  French  cavalry,  with  the  Chevalier  Bayard 
among  them,  lay  in  wait  for  him  close  by  the  Castle  of 
Tournehem,  but  owing  to  the  timidity  or  incapacity  of 
their  commander,  the  Lord  of  Piennes,  they  withdrew, 
instead  of  attacking.  Their  retreat  formed  the  prelude  to 
the  Battle  of  the  Spurs.  See  History  of  Bayard  by  the 
Loyal  Serviteur  (translated  by  Loredan  Larchey,  London, 
1883),  Bk.  II,  Chap.  XLVI. 


II. 

Apologia  Erasmi  Roterodami,  refellens  quorundam 
seditiosos  clamores  apud  populum,  qui  uclut  impium 
insectabantur,  quod  uerterit,  In  principio  crat  scrmo. 
.   .   .   Basileae  apvd  Io.  Frobenivm,  An.  M.D.XX. 

Pp.   139-141. 
Marqvardvs  De  Hatstein  Canonicus  Moguntinus,   Ioanni 

Coleto,  Decano  ecclesiae  sancti  Pauli  Londini.      S.D. 

S  Vm  apud  me  saepenumero  demiratus  tuain  felicitatem, 
qui  tali  fortuna  tarn  insigni  loco  natus,  per  teipsum 
adieceris  mores  et  ingenij  cultum  istis  ipsis  bonis  forte 
concessis  abunde  respondentem,  ea  quidem  est  tibi  erudi- 
tio,  ea  pietas,  ea  uitae  consuetudo  atque  suauitas,  ea 
denique  constantia  Christiana,  ut  sub  tot  fortunae  muneri- 
bus  parum  laborare  uidearis,  quin  excelso  animo  tramitem 
Christi  sic  percurris,  ut  nemini  ex  illorum  numero,  qui  se 
mendicitatis  nomine  uenditant,  sis  priores  concessurus. 
Nam  illi  permulta  simulant  atque  dissimulant  uentris 
causa.  Vt  nuper  cum  cruentissimi  belli,  perquam  hor- 
rendum  classicum  intonabant,  Christi  imaginem  tu  contra 
depinxisti,  exhibentis  oliuam  pacis  conciliatricem,  hoc  est 
ad  tolerantiam,  ad  concordiam,  ad  cedendum  commodis 
nostris,  propter  fratrum  utilitatem  cohortabaris,  nedum 
aliena  non  inuadenda.  Neque  esse  causam  belli  aiebas, 
Christianis  cum  Christianis,  qui  arctissimis  inter  se  sacra- 
mentis  conciliati  sunt,  in  amorem  plusquam  fraternum,  et 
id  genus  multa,  tanta  autoritate  disseruisti,  ut  uere  dixerim 
Christi  uirtutem  de  Coleto  prominuisse,  qua  tenebras  in- 
sidiantes  aduersariorum  tuto  discussisti,  aduersus  uerita- 
tem  furentes,  placiditate  prope  apostolica  uicisti,  ac  insanos 
impetus  dimovisti  leniter,  ut  nihil  per  innocentiam  detri- 
menti  acciperes,  etiam  si  numero,  (quoniam  malarum  rerum 
ubique  est  uberrima  messis)  sententiam  istam  tuam  quae 
potior  fuit,  exuperarunt.  Ad  haec  tantis  dotibus,  ut 
Achilli,  Homerus,  Erasmus,  accessit  diligentissimus  praeco, 
qui  notas  uniuersse  Angliae  admirandas  orbi  ac  posteritati 

316 


APPENDICES  327 

praeposuit,  potissimum  autem  Coleti,  quem  sic  descripsit, 
ut  nemo  bonus  sit  ubique  gentium,  quin  te  vehementer 
obseruet.  Videor  mihi  uidere,  quod  alteri  plurima  con- 
tulit,  uter  autem  suo  amico  inter  uos  plura,  etiamnum 
ambigo.  Nam  ille  beneficium  a  te  suscepit,  quod  is  uix 
eris,  qui  praeter  mendacium,  ornante  stilo,  maximus  per 
eum  fieres.  Tu  autem  ut  libere  quod  sentiam  explicem,  non- 
nihil  gratia;,  qua  plurimum  polles,  uideris  illi  debere,  utputa 
in  lucem  proferenti  uirtutem  istam,  pridem  nobis 
ignoratam.  At  opinor  te  nihilo  secius  uictorem  in  bene- 
fices praestandis,  qui  ERASMVM  peregrinum,  tuae 
Anglise,  alioqui  uirum  incomparabilem,  tot  amicis  bearis. 
Sunt  enim  ei  apud  Anglos  Montioij,  Mori,  Linacri,  Tunt- 
stalli,  et  quicquid  est  bonorum  uirorum,  quos  Germania  de 
monumentis  Erasmicis  sedulo  admiratur  et  effert.  .  .  . 
Nempe  ut  clarissimum  istic  sodalitium  literis  ad  nos 
scriptis  testetur,  quam  non  sitis  uniquiores  ERASMO, 
communi  amico  nostro,  facti  ex  bile  et  impotentia  istius 
homuncionis,  (he  means  Lee)  desiderio  nominis  usque  adeo 
insanientis.  Quae  res  totam  Germaniam  uobis  arctius 
deuinciet,  quamquam  pridem  arctissime  est  deuincta. 
Equidem  ad  tuam  excellentiam  potissimum  scribo,  qui 
sacris  initiatus,  te  mihi  exemplum,  turn  ex  uerbis,  turn  ex 
literis  ERASMI  coepi  habere.  Vtinam  liceret  imitari  tarn 
accurate  quam  ex  animo  cupio.  Sperarem  mihi  non  solum 
literas  meliores,  sed  etiam  uitam  sanctiorem.  Vale  in 
Christo.  Moguntiae.  VI.  Calen.  Maij.  Anno.  M.D.XX. 
Et  aliquando  tuis  literis  nos  digneris,  quibus  intelligemus 
Anglis  cum  Germanis  adhuc  optime  conuenire,  quod 
assequemur  testato  erga  ERASMVM  amore. 

Mr.  Seebohm,  Oxford  Reformers,  p.  469,  suggested 
1 5 19  as  the  correct  date  of  the  above  epistle.  The 
allusions  in  it  to  the  Frankfort  Fair,  which  took  place  in 
April,  and  to  Lee's  book,  make  this  almost  certain. 


III. 

Illustrium  Virorum  Epistolce,  leaf  t.  II,  recto — Edition 
of  1519. 

F.  Joannes  Quonus  Prior  Cartusiae  prope  Sanctum 
Odomarum,  Venerabili  Domino  Jacobo  Fabri  Magistro 
Parisiensi. 

Eternam  in  Domino  Jesu  Salutem.  Audiui  Joannem 
Reuchlin  admirabilis  ingenii  uirum,  Parisium  in  breui  fore 
petiturum,  uirum  inquam,  quern  aliquid  supra  hominem  esse 
suspicor.  Quis  enim  nisi  stolidus  aut  malicia  excaecatus 
fructuosissimum  illius  non  mrretur  diligatque  laborem? 
o  si  hunc  audire  mihi  liceret.  Nempe  ab  olim  ingens  mihi 
inest  desyderium  audiendi,  quid  doceat  ilia  sublimis 
Cabalae  scientia,  quibusue  principiis  adipisci  possibile  sit, 
quam  tantopere  extolli  audiui.  Confido,  quia  dum  uenerit, 
illi  indiuiduus  comes  iugiter  adhaerebis.  Infoelix  ego, 
qui  uestro  colloquio  adesse  non  possum,  quod  certe  me 
delectaret  super  omnes  delicias.  Obsecro  mi  Praeceptor 
uenerandissime,  ut  ab  eo  sciscitari  non  pigeat,  an  (quemad- 
modum  pollicetur  in  suo  Rudimentorum  libro)  scripserit  de 
punctis,  de  prosodia,  ac  de  longis  et  breuibus.  Et  ubi 
huiusmodi  libri  impressi  reperiantur.  Denique  si  quid  de 
scientia  Cabalistarum  ab  illo  eradere  poteris,  obsecro  vel 
breui  epistola  illius  participem  me  facere  digneris. 
Erubesco  certe  hoc  a  te  tarn  familiariter  exigere,  quia 
uicem  reddere  non  possum.  Sed  tuae  liberalitatis 
ingenuitas,  quam  optime  noui,  ausum  mihi  praestat.  Et 
si  talis  sim  qui  tibi,  quod  te  dignum  est,  retribuere  non 
possit,  eum  tamen  qui  te  grandi  diligit  affectu,  rogo,  ne 
contemnas,  quern  si  idoneum  habere  nequis  remunera- 
torem,  habebis  tamen  quoad  uixero  pro  sua  salute  apud 
Dominum  deuotum  oratorem,  qui  te  sua  bonitate  semper 
bene  ualere  faciat.  Ex  Conuentu  Fratrum  Cartusiensium 
uallis  Sanctae  Aldegondis  prope  sanctum  Audomarum. 
XXIIII.  Julii. 

328 


APPENDICES  329 

The  contents  prove  that  the  above  letter  belongs  to  the 
year  1514.  On  June  19th,  1 514,  Reuchlin  wrote  a  lengthy 
vindication  of  himself  to  the  Parisian  Faculty  of  Theology 
— Bulaeus,  VI,  63-65;  Geiger,  Brief  weeks  el,  p.  218-23. 
Probably,  after  he  had  despatched  this  ep.  to  the  Sorbonne, 
he  had  meditated  a  journey  to  Paris  to  advance  his  cause, 
as  Quonus  hints  above ;  but,  of  course,  the  decision  of  the 
Faculty  on  August  2nd  would  have  rendered  the  visit — of 
which  no  record  exists — unnecessary. 


INDEX 


Adrian  VI,  Pope,  xx,  xxvi,  263,  281. 
Aegidius  of  Viterbo,  xv,  xxvi,  106-8. 
Agrippa,  Henry  Cornelius,  238,  253. 
Ailly,  Cardl.  Pierre  d',  xii,  199-200. 
Albert,    Elector    and    Archbishop    of 

Mainz,  205,  208,  242. 
Alcuin  of  York,  59  et  seq.,  88,  165. 
Aleander,  Jerome,  151,  198,  219,  300-2. 
Alexander  VI  (Roderigo  Borgia),  Pope, 

xviii  et  seq.,  3,  73,  111-2. 
Amboise,  Cardinal  Georges  d',  2,  125. 
Ammonius,  99,  100,  129,  235. 
Amsdorf,  Nicolaus  von,  216. 
Angelo  Buonarroti,  Michael,  xxi. 
Annotationes  in  Pandectas,  Guillaume 

Budc's,  195. 
Annotations     of     Laurentius      Valla, 

edited  by  Erasmus,  53-4,  116. 
Antichrist,  216,  217,  253. 
Apostles,  The,  176,  180. 
Aquinas,  St.  Thomas,  43,  85. 
Arande,  Michel  d',  97,  257,  261,  269, 

273;  275>  28+'  zS7-9h  3OI"3>  3°8- 
Arianism,  247. 

Aristotle,  83,  116,  138,  174,  200,  204. 
Atonement  of  Christ,  The,  118. 
Augsburg,  Diet  of,  211,  219,  242. 

Baptism,  Lefevre's  and  Colet's  opinions 

concerning,  118  et  seq. 
Batt,  James,  30,  33,  324.  _ 
B£da  (or  Bedier),  Noel,  xxix,  97,  250-1, 

254,  256,  274-6,  283-95,  3°4-8- 
Bellay,  Jean  du,  Bishop  of  Paris,  305-7. 
Bergen,    Antony    of,    Abbot    of    St. 

Bertin,  III. 


Berquin,  Louis  de,  252,  284-97. 

Beze  (or  Beza),  Theodore  de,  78. 

Bible,  The,  its  influence,  98,  180-1, 
194,  200-3,  245  5  an  instrument  of 
reform,  113,  125,  218,  224,  227, 
234-6,  252  ;  critical  study  of,  139, 
165,  181,  236-7  ;    editions  of,  162-3. 

Bishops,  German,  opposed  to  Luther, 
220. 

Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  value  of  prayers 
to  the,  176,  261,  270,  286. 

Bracciolini,  Poggio,  xii,  65,  175. 

Bramante,  204-5. 

Brant,  Sebastian,  author  of  the 
Narrenschiff,   69-70. 

Briijonnet,  Cardinal  de,  251. 

Guillaume  de,  Bishop  of  Meaux, 

84-5,  97,  1 13-4,  125  ;  tries  to  intro- 
duce reforms,  253-4,  269,  280 ; 
corresponds  with  the  Princess  Mar- 
garet, 255-8,  265-6,  272-3,  277; 
attacked,  282-3,  2^7>  29i"3j  3°8-9- 

Denis  de,  Bishop  of  St.  Malo  and 

Lodeve,  270-2. 

Bud6,  Guillaume,  xv,  xxx,  6,  98,  149  ; 

advocates  the  correction  of  flagrant 

abuses,  192-5,  233,  243,  250,  296. 
Bulls,  Papal,  xiii,  xiv,  17-8,  158,  217-8, 

220-1,  230. 
Busche,  Hermann  von  dem,  151,  154, 

158,  249. 

Caesarius  of  Jiilich,  158,  232,  252,  316. 
Cajetan,    Cardinal,    Thomas    de    Vio, 

211-2,  219,  242,  305. 
Calvin,  John,  xx,  33,  78,  84,  96,  306. 


330 


INDEX 


33i 


Calvinists,  The,  xiv. 

Cambridge,  Erasmus's  sojourn  at, 
76-7,  126-31,  163,  231. 

Canterbury,  Convocation  of  (6th  Feb., 
1512),  99-104,  108-10. 

Capito,  Fabricius,  see  Kopfel,  Wolf- 
gang. 

Capnio,  see  Reuchlin,  John. 

Caraffa,  Bishop,  171. 

Caranza,  Sanchio,  248. 

Caroli,  Pierre,  282,  287,  309. 

Carvajal,  Cardinal  Bernardo,  75,  218. 

Catholicity,  xxiii-vii,  120, 122, 181,292. 

Celibacy,  177,  188. 

Ceremonies,  177. 

Charlemagne  (or  Charles  the  Great), 
58-9,  80. 

Charles  V,  Emperor,  161,  162,  190, 
197-8,  216-30,  242. 

VIII,  King  of  France,  xvi,  4,  6. 

Charnock,  Richard,  32-6,  42,  100. 
Church,  The,  its  need  of  improvement, 

xii-xiv,  xix,  100-10,  123-4,  156,  165, 
177-81,  194,  224;  its  Catholic 
character,  120-2;  its  authority, 
169-70,  176-8,  180,  208,  213-4,  228, 
248. 

Clement  VII,  Pope,  300. 

Clergy,  reproaches  of  evil  life,  104-5, 
177-8,  192-3,  222,  234,  239,  252. 

Clichtoue,  Josse,  97,  252-3,  301. 

Colet,  Christian,   1. 

Sir  Henry,  1-2,  55-6,  242. 

John,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  in- 
fluence of  Savonarola,  xv,  xxi,  5-6; 
early  years  and  travels,  1-7  ;  lec- 
tures at  Oxford,  24-9,  36-8,  45-6  ; 
correspondence  with  Erasmus,  34-6, 
39-43,  5i-3)  54,  76-7,  108-10,  126 
et  seq.,  170-1,  235-42;  efforts  to 
remove  the  faults  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical system,  46-50,  55  ;  educational 
schemes,  56,  61-7  ;  sermon  before 
Convocation,  100-6 ;  attacked  by 
enemies,  110-2,  234;  doctrinal 
opinions,  120-3,  176;   his  influence, 


39-43,  235-9  ;  his  death,  242  ;  his 
character,  235,  238,  243-4.  See  also 
xxviii-xxx,  145,  149,  163,  175,  181, 

»9»i  245,  3'4- 
Cologne,  see  Koln. 
Confession,  auricular,   119,   121. 
Consubstantiation,  200. 
Cop,  Guillaume,  147-8,  252. 

Nicolas,  306-7. 

Council  of  Basle,  xix. 

of  Constance,  xix,  115,  221. 

Lateran  (1512),  75,  99,  106-113. 

of  Pisa,  xix. 

(Cardinals'),  99,  108,  218. 

Councils,  General,  xiii-xiv,  xvii  et  seq., 
104-6,  224,  228. 

Appeals  to,  212,  218. 

— — -  Provincial,   105. 
Courts,  Ecclesiastical,  103-5. 
Criticism,  Biblical,  114-6,  165  et  seq., 

195. 
Critics,  182,  249. 

Textual,  182. 

Curia,  The  Roman,  212,  214,  217,  240, 

242. 
Curialists,  The,  xiii,  105,  161,  211,  214, 

218,  220. 

Deloin,  Francois,  238,  286. 

Deventer,  151. 

Dionysius,  Carthusianus,  25,  26. 

the  pseudo-Areopagite,  102,  122, 

258-9. 

The  Hierarchies  of,  29,  49. 

Dispensations,  Papal,  179. 
Djem,  Captivity  of  Prince,  3-4. 
Dogma,  Christian,  124,  176. 
Dolet,  Etienne,  192. 
Dominicans,  The,  137,  141-8,  160,  207. 
Donation  of  Constantine,  The,  216. 
Dorpius,  Martin,  149,  165  et  seq.,  235. 
Dudum,  papal  decretal,  271. 
Duns  Scotus,  19,  28. 

Eck,  Dr.  John,  of  Ingolstadt,  204,  208, 
214  et  seq. 


332 


INDEX 


Education  in  the  Middle  Ages,  56-61. 
England,  xv,  101,  133,  134,  167,  171, 
183,    185,    190,    199,  240-9. 

Church  of,  101-2. 

Erasmus,  Desiderius,  of  Rotterdam, 
xv,  xxvii,  xxx-xxxi,  5,  19,  20,  25, 
26,  45,  68,  96,  99,  100,  108,  1 10-2, 
121,  140,  145,  149,  159-61,  196, 
203,  231,  233,  235-9,  253>  260,  263, 
288-9  ;  early  life,  1,  6,  29-30,  323-5  ; 
first  visit  to  England,  31-44; 
biblical  studies,  52-5,  109,  126-31, 
139,  163  ;  second  visit  to  England, 
76-7  ;  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 164-74 ;  second  edition, 
239-42  ;  composes  the  Institutum 
Christiani  Hominis  and  Copia 
Verborum,  63,  the  Encomium 
Moriae,  69-77,  t^ie  -Annotations  to 
the  New  Testament,  175,  Institutio 
Principis  Christiani,  189-91,  the 
Letter  to  the  Impudent  Jackdaws, 
310-1,  the  Letter  to  the  so-called 
Evangelicals,  31 1-3;  rebukes  the 
clergy,  103,  232 ;  controversies 
with  Dorpius,  165-170,  with  Edward 
Lee,  234,  245-8,  with  Stunica,  etc., 
248-50,  with  the  Evangelicals, 
280-2,  3 1 1-3,  with  the  obscurantists, 
293-7,  310-1  ;  his  opinions,  175-80, 
243  »  274,  284-6,  310-4. 

Erfurt,  142,  146,  154-6,  197  et  seq. 

Eucharist,  The  Holy,  119,  176,  179, 
260. 

Evangelicals,  The,  274,  277-83,  292, 
293-4,  3°2,  3°3,  3°6,  3°7-9,  3"-3- 

Faith,  The  necessity  of,  124,  209,  212. 
Farel,    Guillaume,   xxix,    84,   97,   98, 

252,  269,  271,  273-5,  277,  279-81, 

291-2,  302-3,  309. 
Fathers,  The  Early  Christian,  xii,  176, 

227,  248. 
Ferdinand,  King  of  Aragon,  132. 

Prince,  161,  219. 

Feudalism,   133. 


Fisher,  Dr.  John,  Bishop  of  Rochester, 
xv,  xxx,  30,  55,  67,  79,  126-30,  314. 

-  Robert,  30,  43,  55. 
Fitzjames,   Bishop  of  London,  48-9, 

55,  "°,  '■',  '7',  235. 
Florence,  xvi  et  seq.,  137,  221. 

King  of,  196. 

Fox,    Dr.    Richard,    Bishop    of   Win 
Chester,  55,  103,  239,  246. 

France,  xvii,  132-4,  245-55. 

Francis  I,  King  of  France,  250,  252, 
253  et  seq.,  272-309. 

Franciscans,  The,  125,  269-70,  287. 

Frankfort-on-Main,    141-2,  225. 

Frederick,  Emperor,  138. 

Elector  of  Saxony,   196,  206  et 

seq.,  231. 

Freedom,    intellectual    and    religious, 

1 1,  18-20,  148,  202. 
Friars,  The,  7-9,  13,  16,  179,  254,  283. 

Gaguin,  Robert,  6,  29,  30,  34. 
Geldenhauer,  Gerard,  311. 
George,  Duke  of  Saxony,  196,  231. 
Germany,  xvii,  132-60,  197-8,  206-30, 
242,  246,  253,  276. 

Church  of,  224,  230,  263. 

States  of,  134,  206,228,  230,  242. 

Gerson,  John,  xii,  85,  200. 
Glareanus,  see  Loriti,  Henry. 
Goclen,  Conrad,  313. 

Gospel,  The,  101,  106,  220-7,  255. 

Gospels,  The,  106,  231. 

Gotha,  153-6. 

Greek  language,  The,   114,   126,   139, 

'43,  IQ5,  233,  236. 

text  of  the  New  Testament,  The, 

"4-5,  I29,  139,  l62-9,  '73-4,  '95, 

247- 
Gregory  the  Great,  Pope,  65. 
Gregory  XI,  Pope,  15. 
Grey,  Thomas,  30,  96. 
Grimani,  Cardinal  Domenico,  71,  149, 

170. 
Grocyn,  William,  xv,  32,  44,  54,  66, 

149. 


INDEX 


333 


Grossteste,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  83. 
Grunnius,  311. 

Hatstein,  Marq.  von,  43,  326-7. 
Headship   of  the  Church,  The,  xxiii- 

xxvii,  213. 
Hebrew  language,  The,   137-45,    162, 

201,  232. 
Hellenism,  98. 
Henry  VII,  King  of  England,  32,  44, 

46,  50,  71. 

VIII,  ,  55,71,75,  ill,  112, 

170,  183,  238-41,  281,  308. 

Heresy,  xix,  100-1,  178,  247-50. 
Heretics,  The,  108-110,  228,  248,  254. 
Hesse,  Eoban,  154. 
Hochstraten,     Jacob     von     (or     van 

Hoog8traten),  142  et  seq. 
Hohenlohe,    Count    Sigismund    von, 

290-1. 
Hue,  Guillaume,  Dean  of  Paris,  252. 
Humanism,  135,  192,  199,  250. 
Humanists,  The,  1 5 1-8,  181,  193-202, 

232. 
Huss,  John,  115,  221,  225,  228. 
Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  154-8,  219,  281. 

Index  Expurgatorius  (1599),  124,  259. 

Librorum     cxpurg.     (Quiroga's, 

l6o0>  93>  I24,   '66,  180,  192,  259, 
262. 

Prohibitorum  Librorum  (Quir- 
oga's, 1583),  52. 

Indulgences,  The,  119,  205  et  seq. 

Infallibility,  conciliar,  papal,  xxv, 
224,  228. 

Invocation  of  Saints,  The,  270,  281. 

Isabella,  Queen  of  Castile,  see  Ferdin- 
and of  Aragon. 

Isaiah,  41,  102,  127. 

Isidorian  Decretals,  The,  216. 

Jager,  Johann,  of   Dornheim,    154-8, 

201. 
Jewish  people,  The,  139-45,  156,  162. 


Jonas,  Justus,  38,  243-4. 

Judaism,   138,   141. 

Julius    II,    Pope,   xiii,   xiv,   xviii,   35, 

71-5,  99,   106-8,   1 1 1-2,  204-5. 
Justification  by  Faith  only,  89,   118, 

121. 

Koln,  113,  141-8,  151-3. 
Kcipfel,      Wolfgang      (or      Fabricius 
Capito),  231-2,  252,  303. 

Lange,  John,  202-8,  216. 
Latimer,  William,  173. 
Latin  language,  The,   139,    141,    143, 
152,  165. 

text  of  the  Bible,  The,  247. 

Latomus,  controversy  with  Erasmus, 

245- 

Law,  Roman,  135. 

Learning,  The  Old  and  New,  144,  197. 

Lee,  Edward,  controversy  with  Eras- 
mus, 234,  245-9. 

Lefevre  d'Etaples,  Jacques  (or  Jacobus 
Faber  Stapulensis),  xv,  xxi,  6, 
146-9,  166,  169,  175,  176,  178,  181, 
191,  193,  203,  244-5,  *S°-h  255i 
275,  280,  291-2,  297  ;  early  life  and 
studies,  78-82;  travels,  82-3,  113, 
25 1,  258  ;  philosophical  and  biblical 
studies,  83-6 ;  his  Catholicity, 
xxvii-xxx,  93-5,  124-5,  27+>  276-8, 
301-2;  influence,  75-8  ;  controversy 
with  Erasmus,  233-4 ;  opinions, 
1 17-22,  253-63  ;  proceedings  against, 
283-5,  287,  294-5  ;  returns  to 
France,  289  ;  retires  to  N6rac,  299  ; 
death,  302-3  ;  character,  97-8,  244, 
251  ;  his  Quincuplex  Psalterium, 
86-93,  Commentaries  on  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  112-24,  253,  book  on  the 
Three  Maries,  252-3,  257,  Commen- 
taries on  the  Four  Gospels,  258-62, 
translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
267-9,  Commentaries  on  the  Catholic 
Epistles,  293-4,  translation  of  the 
Bible,  298. 


334 


INDEX 


Leipzig,  214,  215,  224,  257,  314. 
Leo  X,  Pope  (Cardinal  Giovanni  de' 

Medici),    xvii,    2,     III,     146,     149, 

158-61,   170,   192,  202,  205,  210  et 

seq.,  240,  242. 
Lewis  the  Pious,  Emperor,  59-60. 
Lily,  William,  50,  66. 
Linacre,  Thomas,  xv,  32,  44,  54,  63, 

66,  100. 
Lollards,  The,  100-1,  no. 
Lollardy,  61,  100-1. 
Loriti,  Henry,  of  Glarus,  231-2,  250-2. 
Louis  XI,  King  of  France,  132. 

XII,  ,  75,   147. 

Louise  of  Savov,  Queen-Mother,  256, 

266. 
Louvain,  145-6,  165,  170,  183,  237-49. 
Lupset,  Thomas,  243,  246. 
Luther,  Martin,  xv,  xx,  xxii,  21,  22, 

»°5>  ilS-6,  '48,  154,  i59"6l>  l65> 
181,  197  et  seq.,  246-9. 
Lutherans,  The,  xiv,  221,  248. 

Machiavelli,  Niccol6,  190. 
Mainz,  113,  142,  146. 
Manuscripts,  biblical,  164-9,  !73"4- 
Margaret     of     Angoul£me,     Princess 

(afterwards  Queen  of  Navarre),  xv, 

254-7)  265-73,  282-308. 
Mary  Magdalene,  252. 
Mass,  The  Sacrifice  of  the,  119,  163. 
Matrimony,  177. 
Maximilian,  Emperor,  141-3,  146,  149, 

211. 

Mazurier,  Martial,  147,  282,  287. 

Meaux,  253. 

Bishop  of,  see  Briconnet,  Guil- 

laume  de. 
Mediaevalism,  144. 
Melanchthon,   Philip,    142,   216,   219, 

220,  224,  280. 
Metz,  253. 

Miltitz,  Karl  von,  213-4. 
Ministry,  The  Christian,  235. 
Mirandola,  Giovanni  Pico  della,  xviii, 

137-8. 


Mirandola,  Giovanni  Francesco    Pico 

della,  xviii,  xxii,  92,  108. 
Monasticism,  120-1. 
Monks,  The,  13,  125,  156-9,  178-9. 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  xv,  xxx,  31,  33, 

44,  5°-',  54,  66,  70,  76,  100,  no, 

149,  166,  173,  181,  183  el  seq.}  196, 

199,236,244,314. 
Morton,  Cardinal,  101,  183. 
Mountjoy,     William     Blount,     Lord, 

30-4,  43-4,  54,  7r,  76. 
Muth,     Konrad     (Mutianus     Rufui), 

'53-6,  197-202. 
Mysticism,  137,  206. 

Neo-Platonists,  The,  137,  153. 
Nicholas  V,  Pope,  204. 
Nicolas  of  Cues,  85. 

of  Lyra,  26. 

Non-residence  of  the  clergy,  104,  253. 

Obscurantism,   151. 
Obscurantists,  The,   151,  247-9. 
Occam,  William  of,   199-200. 
GEcolampadius,  John,  238,  273-8,  284, 

291,  3°3- 
Original  Sin,  117-8,  121. 
Orleans,  136,  238. 
Ortuinus,  Gratius  (Ortwin  von  Graes), 

141,  1 50- 1,  159-60,  202. 

Pace,  Richard,  242. 

Paganism,  194-5. 

Papacy,  The,  xiv,  xix,  m,  179,  203, 

211-27. 
Papilion,  273,  286. 
Papists,  The,  220-1. 
Paris,  136,  146-7,  231-2,  250,  266,  275, 

278,  282,  296,  298,  304-8. 

University  of,  19,  276,  306. 

Peasants'  Revolt,  The,  in  England,  15. 

War  in  Germany,  The,  135,  230. 

Penances,  119,  121,  231. 
Pfefferkorn,  John  140-55,  201-2. 
Pirckheimer,    Bilibald,    xv,    78,    144, 

149,  1 71-2,  246. 


INDEX 


335 


Pius  IT,  Pope,  xiii,  xxv. 

Platonism,  137-8. 

Polyglot,    Complutensian,    163,    174, 

248. 
Poncher,  Etienne  de,  Bishop  of  Paris, 

148,231-2,  252. 
Popes,  The,  xiii,  xvii,    143,  156,  169, 

179-80,  217,  220,  228. 
Prat,  Antoine  du,  293-4,  305. 
Prayer,  119,  178. 

book,  The,  233. 

Prayers  for  the  Dead,  270. 
Preaching,  253-4. 

Colet's    at    St.    Paul's,    110-1, 

242-3. 

Prierias,  Sylvester,  149,  208,  214. 
Priests,  in  Utopia,  187. 
Protestantism,  124. 
Protestants,  The,  176,  216. 
Psalters,  88,  163,  233. 
Purgatory,  208,  259,  270. 

Quiroga,  Cardinal,  see  Index. 
Quonus,  John,  147,  328-9. 

Raphael,  183  et  seq. 
Reformation,  The,  124-5,  !55- 

The  Catholic,  xvi,  xxx,  181,  224, 

23°,  234,  244-5- 

The  English,  100. 

The  French,  123. 

The  German,  136,  223. 

Reformers,  The  Catholic,  xi,  xiv,  232. 
Relics,  207. 

Religion  in  Utopia,  186. 
Renaissance,  The  Classical,  xii,  98. 
Repentance,  177. 
Reuchlin,  John,  xv,  xxxi,  136-61,  164, 

173,  197,  201-2,  208,  222,  224,  237-8, 

246-7,  253,  259. 
Rhenanus,  Beatus,  xv,  97,   181,  232, 

252. 
Riario,  Cardinal,  149,  170. 
Roman  Catholicism,  124. 
Roman  Church,  The,  247. 


Romans,  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the,  52, 

102,  200,  231,  242. 
Rome,    xvii,    139,    146-54,    192,    201, 

21 1-2,  217-8,  248,  253. 
Roussel,    Gerard,   xv,   xxx,   97,    269, 

275-9,  284,  287,  289-90,  292,  295, 

298,  301-8. 
Rubeanus,  Crotus,  see  Jager,  Johann. 

Sadolet,  Cardinal  James,  68. 
Saints,  The,  177,  244,  252,  261. 
Satire,  158-9,  184,  202. 
Savonarola,  Girolamo,  xi  et  seq.,  4  et 

seq.,  91  et  seq.,  106-7,  190,  221-2. 
Schism,  The  Great  Papal,  xii. 
Scholasticism,  117,  135,  195,  201-3. 
Scholastics,  The,  210,  235,  245,  251. 
Schools,  56,  59-62,  67-9. 
Scotists,  The,  53,  128,  250. 
Sermons,  Colet's,  102-5,  i°9-n- 
Sforza,  The,  xvii. 

Sherburne,  Dr.,  Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  46. 
Sickingen,  Franz  von,  135,  160,  219, 

225. 
Simony,  104-5. 

Sixtin,  ecclesiastical  lawyer,  33,  36. 
Sorbonne,    The,    xvii,    95,    115,    123, 

146-8,  224,  250-6,  259,  275-95. 
Sorbonnists,  The,  253. 
Spalatin,  George,  202-15,  220-5. 
Speyer  (or  Spires),  146,  230. 
St.  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  117, 

121,  167-8,  200-5. 

Cyprian,  xxiv,  xxv. 

Germain-des-Pres,  Abbey  of,  86, 

87,97,  125,251-2. 

Jerome,  53,  86,   109,   116,   131, 

163-76,  203,  253. 

John's  College,  Cambridge,  67. 

Mary's  College,  18,  32,  42. 

Paul,  xxv,  27,  41,  120,  243. 

Paul's  Cathedral,  99,  ior,  no, 

129,  242. 

Epistles,  114,  203-4,  238. 

School,     20,    61,     109-10, 

128-9. 


336 


INDEX 


St.    Peter,    xxv,    93,    HI,    176,    180, 

260. 

Peter's  at  Rome,  204. 

Standonck  (or  Standon£c),  John,  33, 

95-6,  250. 
Staupitz,  Johann  von,  199-200,  209-14, 

223-5- 
Stunica,  J.  Lopez,  173,  248-253. 
Sueur,  Nicolas  Le,  273,  275. 
Superstitions,  177-9,  23I- 
Supremacy  of  the  Pope,  The,  214  et 

seq. 

Talmud,  The,  142-5. 
Tauler,  John,  200-1. 
Testament,  The  New,  163. 

,  Erasmus's  edition  of, 

109,  129,  139,  188,  231-48. 

The  Old,  139,  162-3. 

Tetzel,  John,  205  et  seq. 
Theodulf,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  59,  88. 
Theology,  195,  203. 
Thomists,  The,  53,  250. 
Toleration,  in  Utopia,  187. 
Tongern,  Arnold  von,  145-50. 
Tours,  88. 

Toussain,   Pierre,   290-1,   302-9. 
Transubstantiation,    179. 
Tiilich,  Hermann,  216,  219. 
Tunstall,  Cuthbert,  54,  149,  243-6. 
Tyndale,  William,  25,  46. 


Utenheim,  Bishop,  244,  252. 
Utenhovius,  Charles,  296. 

Valla,    Laurentius,    xii,   37,    53,    116, 

165-9,  l7Si  l^li  2'6. 
Vatable,  Francois,  252,  269,  275,  308. 
Vatican,  The,  174,  218,  242. 
Versions  of  the  Scriptures,  86-7,  175, 

.233>  247,  266-7. 
Virct,  Pierre,  309. 
Visitations,  Episcopal,  253. 
Vitrarius  (or  Vitrier),  John,  52,   131, 

244. 
Vulgate,  The  Latin,   53,   131,   162-9, 

'72,  19S,  247- 

War,  1 1 1-2,  184. 

Warham,  William,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  48,  54,  71,  j6,  99,  101, 
in,  171,235-6,314. 

Wittemberg,  198,  200  et  seq. 

Wolsey,  Thomas,  Cardinal  and  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  2,  22,  48,  63,  67, 
103-4,   171,  238-9. 

Worms,  Diet  of,  105,  197-8,  222  et  seq. 

Worship,  Divine,   178,  186. 

Wycliffe,  John,  1 1-19,  27,  228. 

Ximenes  de  Cisneros,  Cardinal  Francis, 
162-3,  173-4,  248. 

Zwingli,  Huldreich,  251-2,  273-4,  283. 


GARDEN  CITY  PRESS   LIMITED,    PRINTERS,    LETCHWORTH. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

II I II  hi  I  in   ii  i n 


0035519193 


356 


^^2J5 


MVS 


